What if a Democrat in the White House acted like Trump?

What would it sound like if Democrats talked like Donald Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party? What if they defended themselves and their positions the way Trump does?

Maybe it would sound something like this imaginary and satirical press conference with this imaginary Democrat in the White House:

Reporter 1: Mr. President, you’ve proposed raising taxes on Americans who raise more than $400,000? How do you justify this?

President: That’s a very mean question.

Reporter 1: But sir, don’t you feel you owe it to the American people to explain such a major policy decision?

President ignores question and points to a second reporter.

President: Yes, you. From the Wall Street Urinal, right?

Reporter 2: Uh, Journal. Yes, sir. Joe Todd, chief economic correspondent. In light of your proposed tax cut, Mr. President, do you have any stimulus plan to offset any potential economic downturn?

President: That’s a very stupid question. We wouldn’t even be here if it wasn’t for the Republi-CONS and their giveaways to the rich. What a disaster! There won’t be any economic downturn when my taxes are approved, because they’re tremendous.

Reporter 2: But sir, don’t you think you should have a contingency plan in place, just in case it doesn’t work the way you think it will?

President (glaring): Listen, I don’t know where you studied economics, but I know more about this economy than you do. I know more about it than anyone else in this room, and a hell of a lot more than those fake right-wing economists with degrees from Stanford or Post Toasties.

Reporter 2: Post Toasties? Oh, you mean Kellogg School of Business...?

President: Whatever. Who’s next. You over there.

Points to next reporter.

Reporter 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Gerald Wayne from NBC News here. If I may turn to a different topic, I’d like to ask you about your golf game with Tiger Woods. Sir, there’s a report here that you were informed of the terrorist attack on Los Angeles that killed more than 900 people, but that you insisted on completing your round before returning to the White House. Is this true?

President: That’s fake news. Besides, I need my exercise.

Reporter 3: How is it fake news? There are death certificates for those 900 people...

President: What a nasty thing to say! You’re a nasty man with a face like a horse. You probably can’t even get it up, can you? You, there in the back.

Points to another reporter.

Reporter 4: Yes, Mr. President. Jessica Crow from CNN. Don’t you feel that this slow response gives your political opponents an opening to criticize you as just another Democrat who’s soft on terrorism.

President: No one has been tougher on terrorism than I have. No one. By the way, since no one asked me about my golf game with Tiger, I thought you might find it interesting that I beat him by seven strokes. Next question.

Reporter 5: Akili Brewer from Fox News. Sir...

President (interrupting): Who let someone from Fox in here? Didn’t I order their press passes revoked?

Reporter 5: May I remind you of the court decision reinstating our press privileges...?

President: No. Next question.

Reporter 5: Mr. President, I haven’t asked my question.

President (ignoring the Fox News reporter): I said, next question. You.

Crosses arms in front of him and nods head to one side.

Reporter 6: Jen Carlton with National Review, sir. Thank you, sir. There’s evidence that COVID-19 is reacting favorably to the new vaccine, and new cases are down to a few hundred per day, compared with 70,000 at its peak. In light of this news, why are you continuing a national mask mandate?

President: Because it’s the right thing to do.

Reporter 6: Mr. President, if I may follow up: Scientists say that it is now safe for the vast majority of Americans to resume their normal activities without face masks or social distancing.

President: I trust my gut, not you scientists. Besides, I have scientists too, very good scientists, who say it’s not safe yet.

Reporter 6: Who are these scientists? Can you tell us who they are and what data they’re citing in making these recommendations?

President: They’re very good scientists. Very well respected. Everyone knows this.

Reporter 6: If I may follow up again, sir, when do you expect to lift the national mask mandate?

President: We’ll see.

Reporter 6: Do you have a date?

President: You’ll find out. We’ll have a very big announcement soon. I’ll take a few more questions. You in the blue dress.

Stephen H. Provost is a former journalist and the author of two political commentaries on Donald Trump: Political Psychosis and Media Meltdown in the Age of Trump.

Reporter 7: Elaine Cortez-Dow from Univision. Mr. President, you’ve been criticized by the right for your hard line against Russia. How do you respond to those who say you’re risking a new cold war?

President: There are very bad people in Russia. Very bad people. Do you know how bad Vladimir Poo-tin is? He’s very bad. Remember, the Russiavirus came from Moscow, not China. The Russians made it in a lab and shipped it over here via Facebook.

Reporter 7: Mr. President, there’s no evidence of that. It’s not the kind of virus that can spread on Facebook. With respect, sir, you haven’t answered my question.

President: Then try asking one that isn’t so stupid. Next.

Points to another reporter.

Reporter 8: Good afternoon, Mr. President. I’m Lillian Chao of Next News Daily.

President: Excuse me, why are you speaking?

Reporter 8: You said “Next” and pointed in my direction, Mr. President. I’m from Next News.

President: I meant the woman behind you. But go ahead.

Reporter 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I’d like to return to the terrorist attack on Los Angeles that killed 900 people. It’s been known for days that ISIL has claimed responsibility for this attack. There are those who say you’ve been too slow to acknowledge that Islamic extremists is responsible for many of these attacks. Why have you been so hesitant to condemn militant Islamists? I’m not talking about Islam in general, but Islamic extremists.

President (gesticulating wildly with both hands): ISIL is defeated. 100 percent. Besides, we have freedom of religion in this country. Most of this terrorist stuff is the work of white nutjobs who come from right here at home.

Reporter 8: I’m aware of the statistics, Mr. President. Does the fact that domestic terrorism is more common mean that we should ignore the source of terror attacks launched by Islamic radicals?

President: There are very fine people on both sides.

Reporter 8: Both sides of these terror attacks?

President: You heard me. Next question, please.

Points to reporter in the front row.

Reporter 9: James R. Wilbon with Huffington Post. Sir, the House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed your tax returns. You said previously, during the campaign, you would provide these returns. Will you commit to doing so now?

President: Nobody cares about that. They wouldn’t have elected me if they did.

Reporter 9: Respectfully, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs cared enough to issue a subpoena, and they’ve subpoenaed people from your administration to speak on this subject. But you’ve said you won’t allow them to testify, citing executive privilege. Can you share the grounds on which you’re claiming that privilege?

President: I’m the executive and it’s my privilege.

Reporter 9: Can you just ignore a lawful subpoena?

President: Of course I can. I’ll just tie it up in the courts so they can’t touch me. It’s a Republi-CON hoax. They’re out to get me. It’s not paranoia if it’s true, and it’s not a conspiracy theory if there’s a real conspiracy. Everyone knows that turtle-headed kumquat, Mitch McConman has it in for me.

Reporter 9: What ever happened to “If they go low, we go high”?

President: I never said that. That was someone else. Someone from the old Democratic Party who didn’t endorse me because they’re not a real Democrat. That’s not my style: If they go low, I go low, too. I’m a fighter. If they hit me, I kick them back twenty times in the balls. If you don’t believe me, come at me, bro.

Reporter 10: Julia Hidalgo of ABC News. It recently came to light that your attorney general may have illegally contributed more than $2 million in funds to your election fund — money he allegedly obtained by blackmailing a known child sex trafficker.

President: There’s no proof of that. In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty. It’s in the 19th Amendment.

Reporter 10: Sir, the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. It has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence.

President: Whatever.

Reporter 10: Aren’t you concerned how this might reflect on you if your attorney general is found guilty of these crimes?

President: Maybe you don’t understand the way the system works. The attorney general prosecutes crimes. He can’t prosecute himself. That would be a conflict of interest.

Reporter 10: Which is why he should recuse himself...

President: Recuse himself? Then he wouldn’t be doing his job!

Reporter 10: Mr. President, you just pointed out that he couldn’t ethically prosecute himself. But if he “wouldn’t be doing his job” by recusing himself, how do you propose he proceed?

President: That’s up to him. He’s a very fine attorney general. I’m not involved in those decisions.

Reporter 10: Mr. President, it’s been reported that you’ve had significant contact with the alleged child sex trafficker involved in this case. There are pictures of you with him.

President: I don’t know the man. I take pictures with a lot of people.

Reporter 10: But Mr. President, the man has been identified as your nephew. Would you consider a pardon if he’s found guilty?

President: Who are you talking about? My nephew or the attorney general?

Reporter 10: Either one.

President: We’ll see.

President turns and hastily exits.

Trump, coronavirus expose a flawed definition of leadership

What is leadership?

Apparently, it’s where Donald Trump earns his highest marks from American voters in a recent AP-NORC Center poll.

According to the poll half of Americans say the term “strong leader” is a very good or moderately good description of Trump.

But Trump’s idea of a strong leader appears to be someone who does what he wants, when he wants. That’s what outright and de facto dictators like Vladimir Putin (Russia), Kim Jong Un (South Korea) and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey) do. Trump has praised all three. Their approach appeals not only to Trump, but to supporters who hate red tape, bureaucracy and anything else that limits them from doing ... well, whatever they want to do.

This is their concept of liberty or freedom. It had absolutely nothing to do with the concept of representative democracy. This system, under which we’re supposed to operate, is designed to protect everyone’s freedom by balancing the rights of some interests against those of competing (or opposing) interests.

In a time of political polarization, however, those “opposing interests” aren’t viewed as checks and balances, they’re seen as “evil” and “the enemy.”

Freedom doesn’t mean freedom for everyone. It means, “freedom for me to do whatever I want, and to hell with everyone else.”

Silencing those who disagree

That’s where the whole system breaks down, because the minute we see the opposition in that light, we dismiss their point of view and even their right to express that point of view. That undermines one of the core values we claim to hold — it’s even in the Constitution: freedom of speech and expression.

It’s no coincidence that dictators seek to limit speech and rein in the expression. In an outright dictatorship, it’s done by arresting people, sending them to gulags, confiscating their property, and torturing them. Because our system still has some checks and balances in place, Trump does it by demeaning his opponents through name-calling and seeking to discredit the media (who, sadly, don’t really need much help).

There’s that term “checks and balances” again. Trump doesn’t like them, and neither do people who want to get things done quickly.

Damn the red tape, full speed ahead.

Of course, they’re an intrinsic part of our constitutional system, because the people who wrote that Constitution didn’t want a dictator.

The power of disinformation

He may not be able to do whatever he wants, but he tries. He issued more executive orders during the first three years of his presidency than Barack Obama, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. But checks and balances can’t keep him from saying whatever he wants, and that can be nearly as damaging.

Trump doesn’t agree.

The number of lies he’s told since being in office has been well-documented. But the nature of those lies, at times, makes them even more dangerous, especially in times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine can work on coronavirus. Oh, not so much? Well, try injecting bleach? Sure, that’ll do the trick.

The thing is, even though Trump can’t do everything he wants, he still thinks he’s knows more than scientists, generals, business experts ... just about anyone about just about anything.

No matter how absurd his claims might be, no matter how often he contradicts science (or even his own previous statements), it doesn’t matter. Why? Because studies have shown that “confidence, even when unjustified, leads to higher social status.” Even when it’s bullshit, people believe it.

Trump realizes this, and acts on it. In doing so, he’s tapped into the same psychology used by despots for centuries: Fake it until you make it, because even if you never make it on your merits, you’ll eventually convince people that you have. So you will. That’s how a con man operates — how someone who has repeatedly failed at business gets elected, simply because he says he’s a successful businessman.

Bias toward tyranny?

But there’s more to it than this. Apparently, we in the U.S. are particularly prone to swallowing this kind of B.S. — despite our constitutional separation of powers, and despite the fact that we broke from England because we have a distaste for tyranny.

But do we, really?

A Harvard Business Review analysis presents an alternative, and disturbing conclusion.

The analysis asks what constitutes leadership. In response, it points out that studies have shown a dichotomy, depending on where you live. Places like East Asia and Latin America value a “synchronized leader” who builds consensus, then follows through. Northern European nations and their former colonies (including the U.S.), by contrast, value “opportunistic leaders” who are “more or less individualistic” and “thrive on ambiguity.”

Sounds like a synonym for “self-serving egotists” who “like to have their cake and eat it, too.”

Not a pretty picture.

Another dichotomy: Some nations prefer “straight-shooting” leaders who get straight to the point, while others prefer “diplomatic” leaders who “continually gauge audience reactions.”

The missing piece

What’s missing in all this is one key component: Facts.

The ability to quickly gather, interpret and effectively act on those facts is what makes an effective leader. Not polls, not spin, not self-aggrandizement. A leader is, very simply, someone who was out front. The first person to perceive a problem, and to grasp both its nature and scope. The person most capable of formulating a response, making sure it’s implemented, and ensuring it’s effective.

This has nothing to do with:

• Pretending to know everything about everything, when you really don’t. This can lead to catastrophic mistakes, especially during times of crisis. The Donald Trump method.

• “Continually gauging audience reactions,” which is just another term for “governing by polls.” This can lead to popular but equally flawed conclusions, because they’re based on popularity contests. The Bill Clinton method.

Either way, the facts are conveniently left out of the equation. In the first case, decisions are based not on facts but on one person’s (self-serving) opinion. In the second, decisions are based not on facts, but on public opinion. The latter is at least more democratic, but as the founders recognized, public opinion can lead to conclusions that are just as faulty as a dictator’s — which is why they wrote the Constitution.

Decisiveness is not leadership

Why does Trump get higher marks as a leader than he does for anything else?

Because we’re mistaking decisiveness for leadership. You can be decisive about anything. You can be hell-bent on jumping off a cliff into a pile of quicksand with an anvil tied around your neck. That’s decisive. But it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And it doesn’t make you a leader — unless your followers are a bunch of mindless lemmings.

True leadership requires much more than being decisive. It requires being decisive in the right ways (effectiveness) for the right reasons (reliable information). Trump is neither. The COVID-19 crisis has further exposed him as an ineffective leader who makes decisions based on what he wants to believe, rather than the facts. He leaves scientists to try to clean up his mess, then blames them when he’s wrecked things beyond repair.

That says something about him, and it says a lot more those of us who consider him a strong leader.

He’s anything but.  

Progressives' predicament: To vote, or not to vote?

The nomination of Joe Biden and by the Democratic Party has put progressive independents in a double-bind. They’re asking themselves:

Is a second term of a corrupt president more or less acceptable than a vote for a corrupt establishment?

If the president in question were anyone other than Donald Trump, the answer would be easy. Corruption has become so entrenched in our political system — thanks to corporate money, Gerrymandering, etc. — that voting for any candidate who enables this system seems nothing less than a vote for corruption.

Joe Biden has spent his career enabling the system, from his oversight of the Anita Hill hearings to his vote in favor of the Iraq War. And, perhaps most tellingly, his openness to weakening Social Security and his opposition to universal health care.

Now, there’s no question that Donald Trump is worse. There isn’t enough space in this article to enumerate his myriad failings. Voting for Trump is not an option for thinking progressives.

The question is whether voting for Biden is.

What ifs

A vote for Biden will further entrench a corrupt system that relies on big-money corporate donors who’ll expect something in return from whomever they support. And yes, they’ll get it.

If Trump wins, on the other hand, he’ll continue to wreak havoc with everything from healthcare to minority rights. He’ll likely get a chance to appoint one or two more Supreme Court justices. He’ll keep lining his pockets and telling lies, and his victory will affirm everything so many progressives loathe about his blustering, egocentric approach to politics.

Will the damage caused by Trump be lasting? Certainly, a Trumpist high court would be a long-term nightmare. And the longer Trumpism flourishes, the more entrenched it will become.

On the other hand, however, the longer voters actively support candidates who cater to corporate donors, rather than the voters themselves, the more entrenched that pattern will become. And, in consequence, the less anyone’s vote will matter eight, 12 or 16 years down the line.

One-dimensional Joe

It’s tempting to say, “I’ll put my checkmark by Biden’s name, but I don’t believe in him and it won’t be a vote for him. It will be a vote against Trump.”

Biden won’t care. He’s run his entire campaign, not on issues or personal character, but on the mere idea that he’s the person best positioned to beat Trump. He doesn’t care if you support him, so long as that checkmark is next to his name.

He’s not running as Joe Biden. He tried that twice before and failed to win a single primary. He’s running as “the safe guy” and the “anti-Trump.” But “safe” means maintaining the status quo — which, in turn, means winking at corruption while putting your hand out to accept money from as many corporate donors as you can find.

In doing so, Biden is enabling corruption.

Trump, on the other hand, is actively engaged in it. Is one worse than the other? Sure. Should either one be acceptable? Surely not.

Blame game

So I can understand those who choose to vote for Biden on the grounds that four more years of Trump could be catastrophic. But I can also understand those who sit the election out or vote for a third-party candidate on the grounds that the corrupt system itself is a bigger problem even than the most corrupt individual ever to hold the office. There are potent arguments to be made both ways.

But whichever course an individual chooses to follow (and I can’t stress this strongly enough), there is no good argument for shaming those who disagree with you. There is no good argument for casting blame on those with whom you largely agree of the issues, who are following their consciences and exercising their right to vote. And there is no good argument for pressuring, goading or threatening them unless they act the way you think they should.

That’s not democracy.

And, apart from being rude and childish, such behavior almost never works: People who feel disparaged and dismissed tend to dig in their heels rather than even consider doing things differently — regardless of their political persuasion. (Mitt Romney’s remark about the “47 percent” and Hillary Clinton’s derision toward “deplorables” on the one hand and “Bernie Bros” on the other provoked precisely that reaction, and cost both of them at the polls.)

It’s the system, stupid

Besides, it’s not the voters who are at fault for a lost election. It’s the candidate and, to varying degrees, the system.

That’s why the current situation is so galling. The system has, as it often does, produced two candidates who are woefully lacking. No, they’re not equally bad — I’m not suggesting some false equivalency here. But whichever one wins, it will make the situation worse by reinforcing a corrupt, bought-and-paid-for system that churns out “lesser of two evils.”

At least, they appear as two evils to many of us. It can feel like a choice between Machiavelli and the Marquis de Sade.

For corporate sponsors, by contrast, the result is a win-win. They often donate to both major candidates, so that, either way, they’ve got someone in their pocket. It matters little to them whether that someone is an incompetent egomaniac or a status quo partisan hack.

Worst-case scenario

Maybe, at this point, it doesn’t matter to the future of the country, either.

Here’s a chilling thought: Trump’s scorched-earth presidency and corporate corruption may have both already done so much damage already that our democracy is beyond repair.

That bleak prospect is what keeps many people from bothering to vote. I’m not saying that’s the best response, merely that it’s understandable. You can rebuke them for their supposed apathy — and alienate them further. Or you can consider the possibility that, instead of caring too little, they actually cared too much. And that, at a certain point, people stop are bound to stop caring in self-defense if caring never makes a difference anyway.

It’s not being a sore loser. That’s not it at all. Most people don’t stop caring if they’re losing a fair fight. They stop caring if they believe the game is rigged and they never had a chance in the first place.

Criticizing them won’t help. Only one thing will: Leveling the playing field.

And barring a miracle, whichever candidate wins in November, that won’t happen.    

10 ways Trump and Dershowitz are kindred souls

It’s no wonder Donald Trump chose Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz to represent him at his impeachment trial.

These men are two peas in a pod. Trump personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, is more of an attack dog in the Trump mold, but beyond that surface similarity, Trump and Dershowitz have far more in common, and it runs to the core of who both men are.

It turns out, Trump and Dershowitz have quite a lot in common. Consider the following:

1.

They both trample on the truth. Trump has done so more than 15,000 times since taking office, according to The Washington Post. And Dershowitz? Consider this gem: “The courtroom oath — to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth — is applicable only to witnesses... because the American justice system is built on a foundation of not telling the whole entire truth.” When Dershowitz said this, he basically admitting he has no obligation to tell the whole truth. Which pretty much shoots his credibility. Of course, lawyers and politicians are both notorious for spinning the facts to benefit their own interests. In a list of 15 professions in a 2018 Gallup poll ranked lawyers 12th and members of Congress 15th (politicians) sandwiched around business executives and car dealers. But that’s just the beginning of the common ground between Trump and Dershowitz.

2.

They don’t care what the experts think. Trump thinks he knows more about war than four-star generals and doesn’t believe climate change is a problem, even though nearly every scientist says it is. Dershowitz, meanwhile, disagrees with the overwhelming majority of legal scholars who say impeachment does not require a statutory crime. His response, when confronted with this fact? “Most of the scholars disagree with me. I think they’re wrong.”

3.

They hate admitting mistakes. Or apologizing. Trump hardly ever does (the rare exception being his televised apology for disgusting remarks made on an Access Hollywood tape). When confronted about his own record, Dershowitz tries to dance around the subject like, well, a lawyer. In 1998, he argued that abuse of trust was impeachable; in 2020, he said it wasn’t. When Anderson Cooper asked him if he’d been wrong before, he answered, “No, I wasn’t wrong.” He would say he was “much more correct right now.” People averse to admitting mistakes have one thing in common: egos. The big kind. The fragile kind.

4.

They love the spotlight. Most presidents do, to be sure. But most presidents don’t put their names on hotels. And while we’re at it, can you name another chief executive who has used $60,000 donated for charity to buy a portrait of himself? Dershowitz’s actions speak louder than his words. He’s drawn to cable news broadcasts like the Mothman to a disaster waiting to happen. Like Trump, a former reality TV host, Dershowitz loves those cameras. And he also loves those high-profile clients that ensure he stays in the headlines:  O.J. Simpson. Jim Bakker. Michael Milken. Jeffrey Epstein. ’Nuff said.

5.

They associate with shady characters. In Trump’s case, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Rick Gates... In the case of Dershowitz, see the list directly above (which actually makes Trump’s bunch seem tame by comparison). These were, of course, not personal friends, but clients. Still, lawyers such as Dershowitz don’t have to take such cases. Why choose clients like these? Why not let the public defender do it? Because... see above: Ego. Spotlight.

6.

They defy common sense. Trump uses a mix of intimidation, media marketing and hot-button topics like immigration, religious issues and gun rights. Dershowitz does it through legal arguments that make no sense. According to Dershowitz, a mixed motive is not corrupt. But that’s what “corrupt” means! If you put arsenic in a glass of milk, you’ve corrupted it. The milk is still there, but the whole mixture is toxic because you’ve added the poison. Put it another way: Dershowitz and the president’s legal team argued that a president can’t be impeached if he has a mixed motive. So, if someone steals a car because his mom needs a ride to the supermarket... that must be OK.

7.

They shatter norms. Trump’s all about doing things his way: traditional standards be damned. (This is ironic when you think about it, since the Constitution is the ultimate traditional standard in American secular life.) Trump pulls out of treaties, sends unappointed cronies to foreign countries to dig up bullshit on political opponents, and governs by Twitter. You get the idea. Dershowitz, meanwhile, suggests that it’s impossible to impeach a president who does something underhanded to get elected. Why? Because the president thinks his election is in the public interest! And if he thinks so, it must be true, right?

8.

They love to fight. And not just fight, but fight for extreme positions. As Laurence Tribe, another Harvard legal mind, said of Dershowitz: “He revels in taking positions that ultimately are not just controversial but pretty close to indefensible.” Sound like someone else you know? Former Trump publicist Alan Marcus told Politico: “If he’s not in a fight, he looks for one. He can’t stop.” And the more outrageous Trump’s position, the more people will criticize him, and the more he can...

9.

They play the victim. Trump is the all-time champ in this department, with his absurd claim that “no politician in history — and I say this with great surety — has been treated worse or more unfairly” than he has. By playing the victim, he gains sympathy from his followers, and suggests any attack on him is an attack on them, too. It’s been an effective strategy. And Dershowitz? When Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin dared to challenge his “great and unmatched wisdom” (oops, sorry, that’s Trump’s phrase, not Dershowitz’s) on CNN, he accused them of being “two bullies.” Or maybe they were doing their job.

10.

They claim to be something they’re not. Trump, a billionaire, the champion of the common man? This is a guy who spent $25 million to settle a lawsuit alleging he’d defrauded students who signed up for his non-accredited Trump University. A guy who violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with union workers at his Las Vegas hotel. I could go on. Trump the champion of churches? Yes, Trump belonged to a church New York City church in the mid-2000s, but the pastor didn’t see him there once in five years. Dershowitz, for his part, calls himself “a Hillary Clinton liberal Democrat.” Yet he’s called gun-control advocates “foolish liberals” and used a nonsensical argument to immunize presidents from oversight. Unchecked power is seldom, if ever, any friend of liberalism. I doubt anyone would have called King George’s lawyers liberals if they’d sued the rebellions colonies for breach of contract.