Shakespeare for MAGAts

The following is intended as a guide to some of Shakespeare's most iconic plays as interpreted by the Trump Traveling Circus. It includes a mixture of the Bard's tragedies and comedies. The history plays have been left out because as POTUS says history is bunk. In honor of His Presidential Majesty's  recent visit to Scotland, we begin with Macbeth. 

[Photo from Crayon]

Macbeth: Playing the lead, Trump, who is half Scottish and half fascist, looks smashing and dashing in a kilt. He kills King Duncan, played by Sleepy Joe Biden and becomes king. Melania, as Lady Macbeth, urges him on to bigger things. He invents golf. 

Julius Caesar: Trump, playing Brutus, kills JC (Sleepy Joe) on the Ides of March with the help of other Senators, and helps save Rome from the evils of democracy. Brutus becomes King. 

Hamlet: King Claudius, played by Trump, kills everybody. As the curtain falls, Denmark is no longer rotten. Hamlet, who is constantly brooding, decides not to be early in the play, much to the relief of the audience, who tire of his constant soul searching.

The Tempest: Trump, playing Prospero, saves the Red States from a Category 7 hurricane. By creatively using his Sharpie, he alters the storm's path so it hits only Blue States. Prospero closes down the National Weather Service, which is no longer needed. 

Much Ado About Nothing: Trump threatens every country on earth except Russia and North Korea with huge tariffs and possible invasion, thus raising billions of $$$ for the Treasury and his oligarch friends. They live happily ever after, feasting on peasant. 

A Comedy of Errors: This delightful play follows the hilarious antics of Trump's Cabinet and other appointees as they seek to make America Grate Again. A laugh a minute. "Funniest thing I've seen since the Keystone Kops," one critic chirped.

Twelfth Night: "Let hamburgers be the food of love" is the theme of this hilarious romantic comedy. In a triumph of double-drag acting, Trump plays Viola in disguise, pretending to be Cesario. Will send you home wondering...

Othello: The Moor of Venice: Othello, a DEI hire played by Barack Obama, is overcome by jealousy of his replacement and comes to a bad end. Not tragic at all. Particularly popular with fans of White Supremacy.

As You Like It: In a familiar role, Trump plays God. He sorts everything out and makes everything great again. Best enjoyed with a side of pigs' knuckles and moonshine.

King Lear: Old King Lear, played by Sleepy Joe, makes a holy mess of his kingdom and goes mad. In this slightly revised version, Trump, playing Cordelia in drag, saves the day. 

All's Well That Ends Well: You're not gonna believe how it all comes out well. Trump, as usual, provides the magic.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

Trump and Manifest Destiny

[Image: "American Progress" by John Gast, 1872]

The term "Manifest Destiny" describes the belief of many 19th century Americans that they were destined to rule the North American continent; that they had a "divine right" to dominate the lands between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The idea, if not the term, was unabashedly imperialist but even today, many political commentators seem to shy away from calling US expansion "imperialist." Donald Trump is a firm believer in Manifest Destiny, even if he knows little if anything about its history.

The phrase "Manifest Destiny" came into use after 1845, when newspaper editor and expansionist advocate John O'Sullivan used it. The timing was not coincidental. The US was in the process of annexing Texas, which had gained independence from Mexico in 1836. The US would soon be at war with Mexico, a war that was driven by expansionist ambitions. 

The plunder included what are now the states of California, Arizona, and New Mexico, and parts of Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. Some expansionists, including Jane Cazneau, who used the term "manifest destiny" before O'Sullivan, advocated the annexation of the rest of Mexico. 

That never happened, mainly because Manifest Destiny was a thoroughly racist ideology. It envisioned an American empire made up of white Europeans (plus their African slaves). Mexico was inhabited by large numbers of Native Americans (AKA "Indians") and people of mixed race who could not be part of the divine American mission.

The same thinking operates today. Trump has never spoken of annexing Mexico, because it is full of the sort of "criminal" and "inferior" people he claims are threatening the US. He has, however, repeatedly spoken of a US annexation of Canada, a predominately European white country. 

Advocates of manifest destiny also viewed Canada as a an area ripe for US expansion. Some expansionists demanded that Great Britain cede all of the Northwest Oregon Territory up to the border of Alaska. |Their cry was "54-40 or Fight". War threatened in 1846 but was avoided when the two countries agreed to a border on the 49th parallel. The peaceful resolution was partly due to the fact that the US was about to embark on the war against Mexico. To fight the British Empire at the same time would have been foolhardy. Of course, no one consulted the Native Americans who lived in the region.

Although the term "Manifest Destiny" emerged during the 1840s, the idea was expressed much earlier in American history, indeed at the very birth of the nation. It was annunciated clearly by William Henry Drayton of South Carolina in 1776. In that year, Cherokee bands attacked European settlers encroaching on their lands in the upcountry of the Carolinas and Virginia. The war that followed ended in a crushing defeat for the Cherokee. Many of their towns were destroyed, and they lost much of their historic land.

Drayton, a fervent advocate of American independence, viewed the war as an opportunity. At the time, he was serving as the Chief Justice of the newly independent state South Carolina. Drayton proposed that the defeated Cherokee be "extirpated" as a nation, that their lands "become the property of the American public," and that captives "become the property of the taker."

Drayton declared that the new nation had a divine mission. God had chosen the "American Empire" as his tool to advance the cause of liberty. The Lord had previously chosen Britain for this mission, but the British government had violated divine intentions by "trying to enslave the American people." Like other "Patriot" slaveholders, Drayton failed to see the irony in his own rhetoric. 

In his role as Chief Justice, Drayton also recommended the suspension of due process. A state court charged fourteen "Tories" with treason and sentenced them to death. Their "crime" had been fighting with the Cherokee against the new independent states. Drayton commented that he would have hanged them without a trial, thus advocating what soon became known as "lynching." The sitting "President" of South Carolina, John Rutledge, pardoned them. 

During the War for Independence, partisans on both sides employed lynchings. Nowhere was it more common than the backcountry of South Carolina. Among those lynched were blacks who supported the British, something Rutledge did support. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, blacks became the main victims of lynchings. 

Drayton may not have used the term "manifest destiny" but his statements and actions show that the idea a divine mission was present from the infancy of the American Republic. The popularity of his ideas and methods was an unfortunate omen for the new nation. 

Like Trump, Drayton employed populist rhetoric to convey his ideas of a divine mission to the public. Trump doesn't use the term "manifest destiny" either, but he is echoing it when he says that Greenland and Canada should belong to the US. It is also noteworthy that Trump has not threatened to annex Mexico, because it is supposedly inhabited by the sort of "bad people," he has sworn to deport from the USA. In doing so, he is aligning the country with the imperialists of the nineteenth century.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

The US Constitution: A More Perfect Union?

"The Constitution in Danger!" is a cry we hear constantly now, and it is no overreaction. The illegitimate fascist Trump regime violates the document on a daily basis. What is too often overlooked is that the constitution itself contains weaknesses and loopholes that allowed someone like Trump to come to power and act with disregard for the law. 

For too long people believed, or said, that the constitution would protect us against such an outcome. Separation of powers, the courts, Congress -- all have failed to do what they were designed to do, provide checks on unbridled power. The 14th amendment should have prevented Trump from even running for president, for inciting the January 6 insurrection. Many people believed it would, including yours truly. We can blame greed, corruption, bigotry, stupidity, treachery or fear, but those are things the constitution is supposed to guard against: human failings.

I grew up learning that the "Founding Fathers" were supremely wise men who drew up a "more perfect" constitution for the new United States in 1787. Leaving aside the problematic nature of the phrase "more perfect," how perfect was it? The present situation of the USA indicates some major imperfections.

One of its goals, obviously, was to cement the union of the former colonies, now states. The new constitution was an improvement in that sense on the country's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, drawn up during the War for Independence. The Articles gave the states too much power and the central government too little. But the improvement made by the new constitution didn't prevent the secession of eleven "Confederate States" in 1860-61, leading to a bloody civil war, and 600,000 battle deaths.   

The main reason for that tragedy was the failure of the Founding Fathers to solve the problem of slavery. Many of them were disturbed by the existence of slavery in a country that famously proclaimed human equality and liberty in its Declaration of Independence. But nearly half of the delegates also "owned" people, including George Washington and James Madison, who wrote the first drafts of the Constitution. Their handling the slave issue reminds one of St. Augustine's oft-quoted line, "Lord, make me chaste, but not yet."

The framers agreed to end the African slave trade, but not until 1807. The horrors of the Middle Passage continued legally for twenty more years, and to some extent illegally afterwards. A fugitive "labor" clause required that the enslaved who escaped to another state must be returned their "rightful owners." The words "slave" and "slavery" were not used in the Constitution. The framers avoided them, believing that they would sully the document. But what was there was sullying enough. 

The infamous 3/5ths clause allowed states to count the enslaved as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of representation, a concession that gave the southern states more representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College than they should have had. Thus the legitimacy of slavery was enshrined into the Constitution and the spread of slavery into new states became a contentious issue until the Civil War.

Democracy was another thorny issue the makers of the Constitution had to confront. They wanted to prevent it, not promote it. They feared it. Democracy, they believed, led to chaos, tyranny, and expropriation of the wealthy (people like themselves). 

The Constitution they designed contained several sections designed to minimize popular influence in politics. It provided that Senators be elected by state legislatures, and that presidents be elected by an "Electoral College" chosen by the same bodies. Voters chose the members of the House of Representatives, but who were the voters? 

All of the states placed various restrictions on voting such as poll taxes or literacy tests. Women were excluded from voting until 1919. The enslaved could technically vote after 1865, but were often prevented legally and illegally from exercising it for nearly a century afterwards.   

Many of the anti-democratic provisions of 1787 such as those above have been reversed by amendments to the Constitution. But not entirely. All eligible voters can now vote for president. But it is not the popular vote that decides the winner: It's the undemocratic Electoral College of 1787. Twice in this young century the winner of the popular vote has failed to win the presidency.  

Senators, too, are now elected by popular vote. But the Senate remains a fundamentally undemocratic body. The Constitution provided that each state could elect two senators. That was a concession to the smaller states, who feared being dominated by the larger ones if the Senate was based on population, as the House of Representatives was. Thus, we have the absurdity that Wyoming with a little over 500,000 people, and California with 39 million, both elect two senators.  

The House of Representatives is theoretically democratic, but the distribution of House seats is often skewed undemocratically by gerrymandering the borders of electoral districts. This done by the parties who control the state legislatures. Various attempts to restrict certain voters from voting make things even worse. 

The opposition to the Trump presidency stresses its commitment to "Save Democracy." I fully support that. But we should acknowledge that we are working with an imperfect constitution, and its imperfections have paved the way for an aspiring fascist dictatorship. We should be calling for a movement to "Create Democracy."  

In 1787 a member of the public allegedly asked delegate Ben Franklin what the framers had created. "A republic, if you can keep it," Franklin replied. Notably, Franklin did not say a "democracy." Today, we should be saying that our goal is "a democracy, if we can make it."

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!

The New Declaration of Independence: From Trump

 

The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is fast approaching. The present dire state of the USA indicates that a new declaration is needed, against Trump and Trumpism. The original declaration of 1776 blamed George III for the conflict. Much if not most of the blame in fact lay with Parliament, but focusing on the king made the argument for independence simpler: a free people versus a tyrant. So, today let's KISS again. (Keep it Simple Stupid). 

The original Declaration of Independence, in the part few read today, listed a long series "repeated injuries and usurpations" designed to establish "an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." 

The New Declaration of Independence from Trump and Trumpism, should contain a similar list of the injuries and usurpations he and his toadies have inflicted on the USA. I propose something like the following:

He has made enemies of all traditional allies and friends.

He has repeatedly violated the Constitution, the laws, and the legal system.

He has violated international norms of diplomacy and human rights.

He has comforted the comfortable and afflicted the afflicted.

He is destroying one of the strongest economies on earth.

He has violated the norms of human morality.

He has brought the USA into global contempt.

He has praised and assisted the enemies of human freedom, decency, and democracy.

He is a felon, guilty of bribery and rape, probably tax evasion, extortion, and other crimes. 

He is destroying the fabric of American institutions, including the legal system and those designed to advance education, health, and the general welfare. 

He has attacked and is attacking freedom of speech, opinion, and assembly. 

He golfs while the country burns.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!

The Cabinet of Dr. Trumplagari- nalan's paintings

Trump's Cabinet; Or, Carnival Freaks - nalan's paintings 

Abstract Oil painting with political theme. Satirical. On stretched canvas. 24x18 in, 61x46 cm. Unframed. 

This is an original abstract oil painting titled "Trump's Cabinet; Or, Carnival Freaks" by artist Nalan Laluk. The medium-sized painting measures 61 cm in length, 46 cm in height, and 2 cm in width. It features a unique style that blends elements of abstract art with political themes, depicting figures like politicians and actors. This one-of-a-kind piece is hand-signed by the artist and comes with a Certificate of Authenticity issued by the artist, ensuring its originality and authenticity.

Charlatan No. 47 - nalan's paintings

Charlatan - nalan's paintings oil painting on stretched canvas. Guess who? 

This original mixed media abstract oil painting titled "Charlatan" is created by artist Nalan Laluk. The medium-sized artwork measures 40 cm in height and 40 cm in width, featuring a contemporary style with elements of expressionism and abstract art. Handmade with oil on canvas, the piece is vibrant and multi-coloured, portraying a nature and colour theme. It comes with a Certificate of Authenticity issued by the artist and is signed, making it a one-of-a-kind collectible from the artist's contemporary period of production in 2025 in the United Kingdom.

Robert Burns and Women's Rights

The 25th of January is the birthday of Scottish poet Robert Burns (1759-1796). On the evening of that day, millions of his fans around the world gather for a "Burns' Supper" in his honor. After a meal of haggis, neeps, and tatties* they drink a toast of whisky to "The Bard" and listen to some of his poems. At midnight on January 1, much of the world sings "Auld Lang Syne," the song based on Burns' poem of that name. They pledge to "take a cup o' kindness yet, for auld lang syne!" 

Kindness appears in short supply around the world these days, and the supply is dwindling as rapidly as the number of eggs in Trump's USA. I wonder how many MAGAts sang those words about kindness this New Years with sincerity. 

But kindness, however crucial, is not my main theme here. It is human rights. Burns was a staunch defender of the rights of women as well as men. He wasn't always sensitive to that need. He was something of a womanizer, to put it bluntly. 

Before he became famous for his poetry, he had decided to take a job as an overseer and bookkeeper on a Jamaican sugar plantation, which was worked by enslaved Africans. He changed plans after his book of poetry was published to great acclaim in 1786. It is not clear if he ever denounced African slavery, at least directly. But he denounced injustice and inequality, notably in  "A Man's a Man for a' That."

For a few years after the publication of his book, Burns was the toast of Edinburgh, mingling with and lionized by Scotland's elite. That changed after the French Revolution began in 1789. Like many young men in Europe, he supported that revolution, and the earlier American one. The Scottish elite did not, and most of them distanced themselves from the radical Burns. He left Edinburgh and returned to farm near Dumfries, close to his birthplace. He married and became an exciseman (collector of customs duties), a government job that may have restrained his political radicalism. 

In 1792, Burns wrote "The Rights Of Women." The first stanza sets the tone:

While Europe's eye is fixed on mighty things,

The fate of empires and the fall of Kings;

While quacks of State must each produce his plan, 

And even children lisp the Rights of Man;

Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention,

The Rights of Woman merit some attention.

The poem was highly topical. Thomas Paine had just published The Rights of Man and Mary Wollstonecraft A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. These works alarmed and horrified the elites of Britain and much of Europe. By echoing their rhetoric in poetry, Burns marked himself as suspect in their eyes. 

The last stanza of the poem quoted approvingly a rallying cry of the French revolutionaries, "ca ira!" ("it will be fine") and seemed to place the "Majesty of Woman" above that of kings. 

By today's standards, Burns' list of women's rights may seem rather conservative. The rights he demanded were not political or even legal. They included protection, decorum (good manners), admiration and respect for women's opinions and influence. Good romantic that he was, Burns argued that the power of women lay in their ability to soften the harsher aspects of man's nature. 

All that may sound old-fashioned and anti-feminist, and certainly the sentiments were seized on by Victorian conservatives as an argument against women's suffrage and legal rights. But juxtapose Burns' praise of women to MAGAt statements and behavior toward women, and the difference is stark. Burns may have been something of a womanizer, but he never claimed things like "Your body, my choice." 

On this January 25, let's "take a cup of kindness" and have a wee dram in honor of "Rabbie" Burns, recently voted "The Greatest Scot." He narrowly beat out William Wallace, "Braveheart." 

*Neeps are turnips, tatties are potatoes.

PS. The first Burns Supper took place in Greenock, the town where I was born, on January 29th, 1801, which the organizers mistakenly though to be his birthday. It was later changed to the correct date of January 25th and has been held every year since on that day.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!

Easter Special: The Resurrection of The Orange God

Revised April 20, 2025

Easter Special

This is a great time of year to test claims of Trump's divinity. Crucify him. If he comes back in three days, we will know he's the genuine article.

I'm looking forward to the 250th Anniversary of US independence, to see how Trump and the MAGAts spin his rise to absolute power and fascistic policies while simultaneously celebrating a revolution against alleged tyranny and for liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm wondering how they will deal with the irony of such a celebration led by a president who is a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, and insurrectionist. Can you imagine a Trump speech denouncing Benedict Arnold as a traitor? Arnold was a Boy Scout compared to Trump.

2024 was a leap year, and on November 5th, American voters took a leap of blind faith -- into the abyss. That is producing AGONY for many of them, including his supporters. I mean, the price of eggs. 

IRONY, of course, is an enduring feature of the human condition, but the current world fairly drips with it. The world should be getting better, given our vast experience and knowledge, but it is getting worse.   

A presidential election in the USA is always a leap into The Twilight Zone, given the existence of the Electoral College and the massive fortunes spent on electing our clowns. But this election outdid all the previous ones in its fantastically outrageous mockery of the democratic process, not to mention its sheer lunacy and incompetence. 

When was the last time a convicted felon with scores of outstanding indictments against him ran for president? This snake oil salesman, father of 10,000 lies and nearly as many illicit affairs, sells bibles to the faithful to raise money for his campaign. The scenario drips with irony. Trump doesn't read and certainly doesn't heed the GOOD BOOK. He's broken virtually every commandment on a daily basis. "His" bibles are produced in China, a country he has repeatedly threatened and condemned. But they are cheap and profits are good. Never mind that a bible is a book you can get for free in the USA. Just visit your nearest motel and cop a Gideons. Most churches give them away, or they did when I was an innocent kid.

Trump supporters swear that GOD sent him to save America from satanic "libtards and commies." Somehow, OUR godlike SAVIOR didn't manage to come up with a way to save a million or so Americans from the Covid pandemic. Bleach didn't work or that horse medicine. The US, with 4% of the world population, racked up 20% of the deaths globally. How quickly we forget. That's greatness for you.

To MAGAts, Donnie the Blessed is both savior and savvy, and most important, is opposed to gun control, their political litmus test. Trump agrees that guns are not the problem, people are. The solution appears to be eliminating people, because guns without people will not be a problem. With RFK, Jr. handling federal health services, that goal should be met soon.  

Another irony arises from the fact that Trump, a convicted criminal, ran against Kamala Harris, a successful former prosecutor. The felon should not have been able to run, but he won, which is all you need to know about the abject state of the USA as it heads into the 250th anniversary of its existence. 

If you would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!

 

    

America's Last King: A Far Better Man than Trump.

The July 4th holiday in the US always produces some reflections on America's last king, George III. Most of them celebrate the overthrow of a tyrant, allegedly a mad tyrant at that. 

In recent years, such denunciations of King George have often been expressed by Americans who desire to get rid of Trump. "We removed the tyrant King George in 1776 and we'll get rid of tyrant Trump as well." Bravo, but comparing Trump to George III is a distortion of history. 

Americans succeeded in booting out George III in 1776. They have failed twice to get rid of Trump. Why would a people who  rejected George III 250 years ago accept a virtual tyrant with powers George never had and did not try to get? 

Do the apparent majority of Americans feel comfortable going to bed with a president the Supreme Court has declared immune from prosecution for his acts? Charles I claimed similar powers in 17th century Britain. It cost him his head.

As a historian of Georgian Britain, I reject the claim that George III was a tyrant. In my opinion, the evidence shows that Trump is incomparably worse as a leader and a man than King George was. 

George III had flaws, but an urge to despotism was not one of them. He was sometimes obstinate but he was not a narcissistic sociopath. He remained faithful to Queen Charlotte, his wife of 60 years and mother of his 15 children, poor lady. Unlike most monarchs, he never took a mistress. Maybe it would have been better if he had.

George considered himself a constitutional monarch and took his job seriously. He venerated the (unwritten) British constitution. Unlike Trump, he understood his country's constitution. His father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, ensured he had a solid education in a wide array of subjects, including  politics and constitutional law. As early as age eight George could discuss current politics in speech and writing, in both English and German. He also learned French and Latin. He was the first British monarch to be thoroughly educated in science. 

As king, he was a strong supporter of the sciences and arts. He gave a large portion of his income to charity. He amassed a library of more than 65,000 volumes, and opened the collection to scholars including Samuel Johnson and Joseph Priestley. The collection is now part of the British Library and belongs to everyone.

Frederick, who died before his father George II, prepared his son George to be a "Patriot King," ruling in the interests of his people. Frederick believed, correctly, that the Hanoverian dynasty needed to improve its public image, and he passed that belief on to his son. 

The first two Hanoverian kings were highly unpopular. They preferred their native Hanover to England and spent long periods of time there. Many British people referred to both of them as "German George." 

In contrast, George III was born in Great Britain and considered himself British. At his coronation in 1761, he made much of the fact. "Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Britain." He made it clear that Britain and its prosperity would be his first concern. He spent his life of 82 years in the country. [Image: George as Prince of Wales, by Jean Etienne Liotard, 1754]

Initially, George III had little to do with the actions that angered the American colonists. They were devised by the king's ministers and approved by Parliament. The king opposed some of them, notably the Stamp Act of 1765. Part of that was personal. He detested the architect of the Stamp Act, Prime Minister George Grenville. 

In 1766, George was able to push Grenville out. His successor, Lord Rockingham, repealed the Stamp Act with the help of the king and the popular William Pitt. The king's efforts were applauded in the colonies. New York City erected a statue in his honor. 

In the following year, Parliament re-asserted its right to tax the American colonies. The furor the new taxes (Townshend Duties) produced led to all but a tiny tax on tea being repealed. Leaving the tea tax in place was intended to maintain the principle that Parliament could levy taxes on the colonies. (Image: George III by Johan Zoffany, 1771)

The king supported Parliament's right to tax the colonies. But it was Parliament's right, not his. After the Civil War of the 1640s, British monarchs could not levy taxes. That was Parliament's prerogative. 

The Declaration of Independence blames George III rather than Parliament for the conflict that followed, because it was simpler than explaining the bizarre intricacies of the British political system. The result was a distortion of reality that has become a standard meme of American history.

The Declaration listed 27 grievances against the British government. Most of them began with "He has...", personalizing the conflict into one of the people versus an overbearing king. It is worth noting that perhaps as many as half of the colonists were Loyalists who supported the king's government during the war. 

George III was no warmonger. One of his first actions as king had been to bring an end to the Seven Years' War with France and Spain at a time when Britain was winning victories everywhere. 

It is true that once the American war had begun, he was determined that it end in a British victory. He obstinately continued to support the war even after the disastrous British defeat at Yorktown (Oct. 1781), when most of his ministers urged him to give up. A few months later, he agreed and authorized peace negotiations.

Once independence was conceded he accepted, grudgingly, the new relationship with the former colonies. In 1785 he told John Adams, the first American ambassador to Britain, "I was the last to consent to the separation; but the separation having been made ... I have always said, as I say now, I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power." 

George III is often referred to as Mad King George, and people persist in connecting his loss of America to insanity. The problem with this view is that he showed no symptoms of mental illness before 1788, five years after American independence.  

British rule in the colonies was often insensitive and infuriating. The frustrations were increased by the immense distance between Britain and America. But no colonies of the time were as loosely governed by an imperial country as the thirteen who declared independence in 1776. They were also highly prosperous.

 

The timing of the revolution had more to do with the removal of the French threat from North America in 1763 than any actions of George III or the British government. Before then, the colonists felt the need for British protection. After then, they didn't. That emboldened them to push for change in the relationship between mother country and themselves. British actions exacerbated an already difficult situation.

The change to independent status made sense, but explaining it as the result of the tyranny of George III is misplaced. In 1785, an American Quaker, Hannah Griffits, provided an interesting perspective on the results of the revolution: 

The glorious fourth -- again appears 

A day of days -- and year of years 

The sum of sad disasters 

Where all the mighty gains we see 

With all their boasted liberty 

Is only change of masters. 

(Image: George III by Allan Ramsay, 1762)

Further Reading: 

John Brooke, King George III (London: Constable, 1972)

Stanley Ayling, George the Third (London, 1972)

Jeremy Black, America's Last King, George III (New Haven; Yale University Press, 2006)

Andrew Roberts, George III (London: Penguin Books, 2023)

 

Dump Trump! Then Reform the System that Made Him Possible

 

We must remove Trump from power. That is obvious. But that will not be enough to preserve America's Democracy. His supporters and enablers will remain. Unless the USA carries out major reforms of its political system, the danger from anti-democratic, fascist movements will remain high. 

WHY? Because democracy in the US is not firmly rooted, and never has been. Trump has built on anti-democratic policies and machinations dating back decades or more, some to the very beginnings of the country. Many of them exist at the state rather than federal level. A root and branch strategy is needed to eliminate these dangers. 

Many people will say the changes I suggest are impossible. And it will be a huge struggle to achieve any of them. But many people said that all men, and later all women, could never get the vote. Many people said slavery could never be eliminated. Britain was the greatest slave trading nation in history, but after massive grass roots campaigns, Parliament abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in the British colonies in 1833. The US required a bloody civil war to accomplish emancipation.

The Chartist Movement in Britain in the 1830s and 1840s took its name from "The People's Charter." Its goal was to establish a working democracy. The Chartists did not include women in their vision of democracy but that demand surfaced almost immediately, and women got the vote in two stages, in 1918 and 1928. 

I have drawn up a People's Charter for the USA: 

• 1.       Abolish the Electoral College, an anti-democratic institution that has empowered American reactionaries since slavery times. Replace it with the National Popular Vote. 
• 
  
• 2.       End gerrymandering. Create an independent, non-partisan commission to draw up boundaries of congressional constituencies. This is done in the UK and other countries.
• 
  
• 3.       Overturn the obscene Citizens United decision of SCOTUS. It is responsible for hugely increasing the influence of big money in elections. Nothing like this exists in other democracies.
•  
• 4.       Prohibit political ads. They are virtually useless as information, misleading or untrue, insulting, and damned annoying. 
• 
  
• 5.       Introduce proportional representation or ranked voting to end the stranglehold of the two-party system. Some people will argue that this would make efficient government impossible. Ask yourself, is what have now efficient? 
• 
  
• 6.     Make the Senate representative of the country. It gives the less populated states collectively far more power than the most populated. California with 40 million people and Wyoming with only half a million have the same number of senators. This is both absurd and grossly undemocratic.
• 
  
• 7.       Make voting simple, safe, and convenient. Voting is an obligation. It should not be a survival test, torture, or a danger. Eliminate voter suppression of all kinds. 
• 
  
• 8.      Fund public education adequately and fairly. Public college and university education should be free or cheap, as it was when I went to college and university in the late 60s and early 70s. Why are we shortchanging our children and dumbing down our voters? 
• 
  
• 9.      Establish a national, affordable health care plan that covers everyone. The present for profit system is a disgrace and an international laughingstock. The system costs the US twice as much as in other developed nations, and the results are worse in terms of mortality and morbidity. Scores of millions are uncovered, or poorly covered. Health insurance must be separated from employment, which turns workers into virtual serfs.
• 
  
• 10.       Require the payment of a living (not minimum) wage for all adult workers. This should vary according to local living costs. It costs a lot more to live in California than in North Dakota.
• 
  
• 11.     Reduce the period between the election of the president and the inauguration to two weeks at most. This would have minimized Trump's ability to create havoc. In the UK and many countries, a new government generally takes over immediately after the election. This can be done because the parties have already selected the members of the cabinet and other ministers.
• 
  
• 12.     Reform the judiciary. Judges should be selected by professional bodies, not by presidents and Congress. This includes the Supreme Court, whose bias towards Trump is flagrant and dangerous. Justices of the SCOTUS and all judges should serve fixed terms, not for life. They should operate according to a code of ethics. The number of justices, currently nine, should be fixed in law.

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!

Remember, Remember the 5th of November! (And January 6th!)

Remember, Remember, the 5th of November!

To foil Trumpist treason and plot 

Ain't no reason why MAGAt treason

Should ever be forgot!

Trump and his MAGAts a scheme did contrive,

To seize the capitol, just down the drive.

Thousands of MAGAts came from below,

Intending the government to overthrow.

A brave thin Blue Line did them hold,

Till the booze they'd guzzled caused them to fold.

A rope, rope to tie the DOPE!

And give democracy a bit of hope.

The 5th of November, remember the date,

And use your vote -- before it's too late!

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks! 

A War Between History and Memory: The American Revolution

The 250th anniversary of the American Revolution and War for Independence is nearly upon us. It is destined to reach new heights of commercialism, with beer companies no doubt leading the parade. Corny commemorations and mythical tales will all be a part of the celebration. Will there be room for calm reflection on the events of 1775-1783? Not much, I fear, especially in the Age of Trump and MAGA. Even in the best of times, dispassionate analysis of great events tends to be in short supply, overwhelmed and marginalized by the popular taste for hoopla. On this occasion calm analysis is likely to be obliterated by Trumpist censorship. 

The revolution will of course be celebrated as a great victory for liberty and equality. That is true in part, though more in the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence than in reality. Awkwardly, it was also a war to preserve slavery. 

In 1773, British judge Lord Mansfield declared in the Somerset Case that slavery had no basis in English law. The Somerset ruling aroused panic in the southern colonies, and helped unite them with the northern colonies, where the rallying cry was the more historically palatable "no taxation without representation." Traditional narratives of the revolution have tended to emphasize Britain's attacks on colonial liberty while ignoring the colonist's denial of liberty to the enslaved.   

Alarmed southern slaveholders denied the right of Parliament to pass laws affecting the internal or domestic affairs of the colonies. Slavery, they argued, was a domestic issue. In 1775, on the verge of war, they accused the British of plotting slave revolts and Indian attacks as a means of subduing the rebellious colonies. In 1776, they decided that independence was necessary to prevent emancipation and loss of control over enslaved Blacks. 

In that sense the War for Independence had more in common with the Civil War than is generally acknowledged. Looked at from the perspective of the enslaved population, both were wars for liberty. Many Blacks absorbed the rhetoric of their white masters and saw the Revolutionary War as an opportunity to secure their freedom, by joining the British. Historians estimate that around 100,000 enslaved persons ran off to British lines between 1775 and 1783, 25,000 in South Carolina alone. They were not complacent bystanders, but active participants in the struggles that gave birth to a nation. 

History is often unpleasant, messy, and chaotic. It is seldom as simple as we would like it to be. Historical myth is the opposite: neat, generally pleasing -- at least to our prejudices -- and comfortably black and white. The myths are "alternative facts" or "fake history." Not surprisingly, myths tend to dominate if not smother actual history in the popular consciousness, the "public memory." 

By "actual history" I do not mean the "truth" but the result of painstaking historical research, writing, and interpretation. If well done, the result is our best current approximation of the truth. In that sense, history resembles science. Science is a more exact business, of course. Scientists can use repeated experiments to confirm their hypotheses. Historians do not have that luxury. They cannot repeat history. In most cases, they would not wish to. 

Historian Lewis Namier wrote that the writing of history "is not a visit of condolence." He might have added that the same is true of reading it. Learning our history is often difficult, troubling and confusing. If it never is, we are reading the wrong stuff. Some people avoid the problem by ignoring history. Henry Ford is alleged to have said that "history is bunk." He didn't say exactly that, but he did reject the past as dead and meaningless, not worth bothering about. 

Abraham Lincoln disagreed with Ford. In his Second Inaugural Address he declared, "My Fellow Americans, we cannot escape history." He understood that the terrible war nearing its end was the result of the country's failure to abolish slavery early in its history. Novelist William Faulkner held a similar view: "The past isn't dead. It is not even past." His characters are prisoners of their history, in this case the history of the Deep South. 

Karl Marx wrote in much the same vein in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852): "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living." Marx prefaced that statement with "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." One does not have to be a Marxist to agree with that statement. Our history, like our biology, constrains us, for good or ill.

Patriotism and Scoundrels: The Context of Donald Trump

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Samuel Johnson, AKA, Dr. Johnson, 

Johnson, one of the great literary critics and essayists of the modern age, is best known for his highly successful Dictionary of the English Language (1755). He was the subject of the first modern biography, James Boswell's Life of Johnson (1791). Johnson was a conservative, although an unusual one who criticized many of the evils of his time, including slavery.

According to Boswell, Johnson made the remark about patriotism in the midst of a conversation with friends one night in April 1775. Boswell does not say who Johnson had in mind, but from the context of the discussion it was likely to have been the contemporary Whig politician Edmund Burke. 

The image below is a painting of the The Conversation Club, at which Johnson was a regular attendee. Johnson is the figure in brown at left. Boswell is at the far left behind him. The man with the ear trumpet to his right is the artist and organizer of the The Club, Sir Joshua Reynolds. 

The Club met at the Turk's Head Inn in Soho, in what is now London's China Town. The building survives as a Chinese market. Burke is also pictured here, which means it probably wasn't the time when Johnson made his famous remark. In any case, Johnson later said some kind things about Burke.

On that particular evening, Johnson was not condemning patriotism. In his dictionary he had defined patriotism in a positive sense. He was attacking those who sought to exploit patriotic feelings for personal or political advantage. Burke was perhaps guilty of it, but less guilty than more modern practitioners of the art. 

Johnson's quotation has lasted because it exemplifies a major problem of our age of mass voting and mass communications. As democracy has advanced, so has the number of scoundrels trying to leverage patriotic and nationalist sentiments to gain power. 

The arrival of cheap daily newspapers and other inexpensive publications in the late 19th century provided a platform for demagogues appealing to the new voting public. The simultaneous spread of pseudo-scientific nationalist and racialist views provided them with a popular agenda. 

By the 1920s, radio and film became additional platforms for rousing patriotic outrage against the "enemies" of the nation, which fascists and others on the far right increasingly defined in narrow ethnic and racialist terms. 

From the 1950s, patriotic scoundrels could use television to spread their malign messages. In our time, social media has opened up another outlet. 

Obvious examples of patriotic scoundrels from the last century include Hitler and Mussolini. The USA produced Senator Joe McCarthy and more recently, Donald Trump. The UK had Oswald Mosley in the 1930s and in the past few years Boris Johnson has offered Trump Lite. 

They have all to varying degrees exploited the same cliché-ridden formula. They promise to "make our country great again" and "protect it against its enemies within and without."  

These well-known demagogues are just the tip of the patriotic scoundrel iceberg. It includes a huge cast of less well-known historical and contemporary figures. 

Most of them from the past do not get much air time on the History (AKA Hitler) Channel, Yesterday and their imitators. Most of them from the present may not register much on the public consciousness, except perhaps among frequenters of social media or talk radio. 

That is a shame. The lesser known purveyors of patriotic rubbish enable the more visible ones by spreading and often creating their message. Focusing so much of our attention on a phenomenon like Hitler lulls too many of us into thinking that only leaders wearing swastikas and heiling are dangerous. 

The rabidly anti-Semitic Karl Lueger, pictured at the top of this post, was the mayor of Vienna in the early years of the 20th century. He looks innocent enough but he and others of his ilk inspired Adolf Hitler. Trump's acolytes included Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, and many others.

It is depressing to reflect that 250 years after Samuel Johnson's famous quip, charlatans and demagogues continue to deceive the public almost effortlessly with "patriotic" rhetoric. 

Perhaps, some would say, education is the answer. It wouldn't hurt. But we humans are exceedingly slow learners. Perhaps the fault lies not in the scoundrels but in people so easily and willingly deceived by the nonsense they spout. That is depressing.    

If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!