The “Weimar Republic” was, as described by Wikipedia, the “democratic government founded in Germany following Kaiser Wilhelm II’s abdication” as World War I came to an end. It fell-apart when Adolf Hitler achieved power in 1933. When one reviews its relatively short tenure, we are struck by similarities with certain characteristics of  recent and present American democracy.

The democratic election of a would-be strongman, an increase in racist and anti-Semitic incidents and rhetoric, growing economic inequality, purposeful lying by the nation’s highest officials, a rise in populist sentiment, implementing protectionist economic policies, and structural and ideological shifts amongst the country’s most prominent political parties, all bear similarities between Weimar then and America now.

In 1933, Hitler became Chancellor, not because he seized power, but as the leader of  the Bundestag’s (i.e. parliament), most popular political party, and thus was asked to form a government. With luck, political skills and some intimidation, he succeeded in fulfilling that request. Germany was on the path to dictatorship.

America in 2016 faced 15+ candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination and a not very popular, but inevitable candidate on the Democratic side. The country was still engaged in two wars, and the economy was doing well following a major recession eight years earlier. But, income inequality and cultural dissonance were publicly evident. In the end, due to structural quirks in our electoral system (i.e. the Electoral College), a weak campaign run by Hillary Clinton, and criminal (perhaps even treasonous?) misbehavior by the Trump campaign, a candidate with a strong authoritarian personality became President.

Beyond his unifocal desire to control the political process,  Donald Trump has told approximately 9,000 lies since taking office, and flaunts how little he knows about history, economics, politics, etc. He is also an incompetent Chief Executive.

While Hitler shared many of these same traits, he was dangerously competent, and a strong leader. He was also the definition of evil itself, unwilling to draw any boundaries in dealing with dissent and political opposition. His racism took the form of Genocide rather than Trump’s expressions of racist rhetoric and political abuse.

In leading up to the electoral victories of both men, what they also shared were political structures that were failing and unable to coexist with present realities. This was accompanied by politicians filled with hubris and an absence of moral boundaries. In both cases, contending political parties were bereft of relevant ideas, as the major ideological battles were fought from within and not against, each other.

Today’s Republican Party is the party of Donald Trump. The way the Democrats are splintering into many candidates and numerous factions leads me to ask if we are in for a Weimar type outcome in 2020, when the absence of unity and coherent ideology will  lead  to the re-election of a strengthened, more autocratic Donald Trump?

Over the last week, Bibi Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, brought his country to the brink of state-sponsored racism. Donald Trump, the President of the United states, has again revealed how disoriented from reality and hateful he is. Let’s begin with the latter.

In his acceptance speech for winning an Academy Award for writing the “Best Adapted Screenplay” for the film Blackklansman, Spike Lee noted that the 2020 election is “soon.” Thus, he went on, we should “all mobilize” and be “on the right side of history” (and) “choose love over hate, let’s do the right thing.” Trump responded in a tweet: “Be nice if Spike Lee could read his notes, or better yet, not have to use notes at all, when doing his racist hit on your President, who has done more for African-Americans…than almost any other President.”

My initial reaction is, “Get the men in the white coats. Trump flipped out.” Almost always, when the latter delivers a speech, or otherwise publicly comments, he is obviously reading a teleprompter or his notes. He cannot speak coherently without an assist. When these aids are absent, he repeats himself and/or rambles incoherently. For him to argue that  Spike Lee is a racist, rather than look in the mirror, is to further confirm his divorce from the real world. For our safety, he needs to be removed from office.

In terms of the Israeli Prime Minister, I won’t try to explain the intricacies of the Israeli political system except to note that it has a Parliamentary structure and individuals are elected by party affiliation, based on proportional representation. To be able to form a government, a party needs to secure, on its own or by making deals through a coalition,  at least 61 seats in the 120 member Knesset (Parliament). For Israel’s upcoming elections in April, Netanyahu has maneuvered the system so as to assure he reaches at least that number by permitting an avowedly racist party to join his candidate list.

Bibi has no principles, that is obvious. But, for an Israeli Prime Minister to allow a neo-Nazi type party to become part of its government, is intolerable. Even AIPAC, the American lobby for Israel, an organization that  almost never criticizes internal Israeli politics, has denounced this political ploy.

Is it any wonder that Trump and Bibi are close friends and political allies? Hopefully, the Israeli people will, for their own security, join Americans in trying to contain the dangerous, racist actions of their respective leaders.

For the last couple of weeks, the country seemed fascinated by the “Blackface” scandal in Virginia. The state’s Governor, and other local politicians, seemed befuddled. “Maybe” they painted themselves in Blackface at various times in their past? Deplorable, yes, but this incident should renew in all of us, at a time when the President of the United States is a none too subtle racist, how little we have done as a nation to move racism from being a cancer to a benign relic of our past.

As a Jew in America, I grew-up hearing the words “Never Again” anytime violent and/or verbal onslaughts were launched against Jews. Jewish organizations and the Jewish community in general, regularly organized public campaigns and statements condemning such attacks. Whenever comparable type assaults were directed towards people-of-color, less intense cries of protest and concern were tragically common among the general populace. Why less intense? To this observer, the answer is obvious: racism is so ingrained in the United States that it is regarded as normal. As a topic of conversation, almost banal. What else is new? Since the onset of American slavery and then the Civil War, our racism has always been evident, an implicit—and too often explicit—part of life in the United States. Those hateful seeds are buried deep, difficult to root out. Tragically, the effort to remove them remains muted at best.

The Republican Party,  and especially its leaders, have used the race card to achieve electoral success, and we have too readily let them. So, why have we not intensified our resistance to Republican enabling of Trump’s racism? For some answers, let’s begin with our “hater-in-chief.”

The Trumps started early. Donald’s father attended Ku Klux Klan rallies and the Trump Company tried to avoid renting apartments to people of color. In just the few years since Donald began his Presidential campaign, he has directly attacked the Disabled and, especially, Muslims, and Hispanics. Remember, too, his term for countries in Africa: “shithole.” He also defended white racists and Nazis marching in Charlottesville, Virginia.

With this record of hate as background, Trump has refined the use of bigotry as an instrument of his Presidency. His war on immigrants  became a means to focus attention on an “enemy.” These “invaders,” are primarily  non-white, Hispanic and Muslim, accused of “illegal entry.”  He has ordered their children to be seized at our southern border and, at every opportunity, publicly identifies them as the reason why we are facing a “national emergency.” But, again, where is the massive public outcry of dissent and opposition to this would-be strongman and his enablers?

We are in the throes of a real national emergency, one catalyzed by Trump and the Republican leadership. To help overcome this threat, work stoppages and daily, public demonstrations should be used to demonstrate that normalcy cannot coexist within a climate of hate.  America, despite its racist past, must rally appropriate resources to remove this cancer from the body politic. Otherwise, it will continue to corrupt America, as slavery and discrimination have done throughout history.

As a first step, I suggest that widespread public teach-ins about hate, race, and other relevant topics be conducted by educators, the responsible media, and America’s tested moral leaders. Corporations and the business community should sponsor such events. They should be available to everyone, based on an understanding that only thru education and non-violent dissent will we be able to successfully end the real national emergency we are facing.

Last week, I spent time deploring the multiplicity of organizations that the American Jewish community keeps creating. The problem is not, per se, their number. Rather, it is the fact that instead of having a positive impact on Jewish causes—especially Israel—the reality is often otherwise. Public support for Israel, within and without American Jewry, has noticeably shrunk. Israel has become a partisan political issue and a significant segment of American Jews regard Donald Trump and the Republican Party as the Messiah and his acolytes. The situation is getting worse, and Trump will continue to be the major beneficiary unless the Democrats get smart and act now.

Here’s the problem: Israel, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, has adopted policies, especially towards the Palestinians, that have drawn vocal opposition  from significant elements within the Democratic Party. The Republicans have taken advantage of that situation to denounce these individuals as anti-Semitic. Again, the perennial debate rages as to what, exactly, that term means. Can you be anti-Israel and/or anti-Zionist (both terms mean essentially the same thing), without being ant–Semitic? For the 70 years that Israel has been in existence, that question has remained in limbo. Today, for Democrats to engage in endless debate on the matter is to fall into a Republican trap from which there is no easy escape.

Anti-Semitism, according to The American Heritage Dictionary is, very simply, “Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.” Israel is not part of the definition but, there should be little doubt that most anti-Semites have no love for Israel. Among many on the Christian Right, the opposite is true: they love Israel for their own religious reasons, but are seriously uncomfortable with Jews. By definition, they are anti-Semitic.

As The New York Times reports regarding current political attacks against the Democrats: “The pressure on Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashid Talib (D-Mich.) is part of a larger GOP effort to drive a partisan wedge into the traditionally non-partisan relationship between the United States and Israel. Republicans are casting themselves as the more resolute defender of Israel, heightening the Party’s appeal to traditionally Democratic Jewish voters.” These two Congresswoman have directed their ire towards Israel and have both consistently declared their support for the Palestinians. They also have major supporters that use social media to make comments that, by any definition, are anti-Semitic.

Just this week, Congresswoman Omar found herself in another round of criticism when she accused the American-Jewish lobby AIPAC, of raising money for candidates who support Israel (it’s illegal by the way). In turn, she ascribed such fundraising as the reason why Israel maintains strong support in Congress. Raising anew anti-Semitic stereotypes, Omar apologized, thanking those who educated her about the  history of anti-Semitism.

Omar, and many of whom make the same accusations, ignore the strategic, religious, moral, and historical reasons for American support of Israel. Do campaign contributions also play a role? Let’s not be naive—of course they do. Just ask Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader, who a few months ago charged Jewish financiers of trying to buy the mid-term elections. Until now, does anybody remember this other anti-Semitic occurrence?

The disparate reactions to the Omar and McCarthy comments  are the direct result of Israel no longer being a bi-partisan issue. The Republicans were also in charge of the House at that time and, unlike their colleagues across the aisle, were very effective in burying McCarthy’s trope. The Democrats must get better at dealing with this and similar-type outbreaks. The big-loser will be the American people if such incidents help Trump in his re-election bid. In turn, if Israel remains a partisan matter, the Jewish state will be in severe trouble. Finally, don’t forget Charlottesville and Trump’s praise for the Nazis. Want him re-elected? Racism, hateful and ill-considered remarks must end now!

American Jews love to create organizations. Regardless of how many already exist, and if a few members of the community feel that their pet project is being neglected, or a specific concern is being ignored, if they possess or can acquire the resources to do so, they search for the like-minded, and together create their own organization. Although I may be exaggerating somewhat, this pattern of behavior remains; I am not necessarily criticizing it.

In 2017, the National Jewish Democratic Council was formed. Last week, the Democratic Majority for Israel was announced. The latter, according to The New York Times, is to “counter the rising skepticism on the left towards the Jewish state by supporting lawmakers and candidates in 2020 who stand unwaveringly with the country.” Will they endorse candidates who are not Democrats? Who defines what is and is not pro-Israel enough to receive support? Can you gain credence if your record on Israel is not 100% towards policies the group favors? Who will make the judgment(s)? As yet, we don’t really have answers to any of these questions. I wish them well, but ask why another organization, similar in goals and membership, such as JStreet, could not fill the perceived void? Again, I do not have answers. I would guess that the purpose of the new group is to deal solely with the Democratic Party, given that some of the the party’s elected officials are already voicing strong criticism of Israel,  which the new group is trying to counter without alienating anyone.

As for the Republicans, they comprise, in part, an “amen corner” for Israel of at least 65 million strong—-the Christian Right. Within this religious contingent are numerous groups that support Israel based more on religious belief than political or strategic issues. In fact, some “supporters” have been accused of anti-Semitism: i.e.  they love Israel because of a mandate from the Lord, but are very uncomfortable around Jews. Nevertheless, the Republicans also maintain and fund mirror image groups on the Right that support Israel in a similar fashion to the Democrats.

So, with all these organizations, has America and Israel moved closer strategically and politically?  Has the American Jewish community embraced their Christian colleagues with new enthusiasm because of their support for Israel? Certainly, regarding the latter, the answer is no. American Jews, especially those under 40, have moved decidedly against many Israeli policies, foremost among them being their attitude towards  the Palestinians and on matters of religious pluralism. As the Israeli government stiffens its behavior in these areas, younger Americans (and in many respects, even those above 40), move decidedly away from support for Israel. Downright opposition is even more evident.

In part, this has much to do with Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister, “Bibi” Netanyahu, two decidedly unpopular figures among a majority of American Jews. Yet, these negative attitudes began to increase when Obama was President, and the Republicans controlled Congress. During the latter stages of the Obama Presidency, Republican leaders invited Bibi to address Congress without informing the White House in advance, a major breach of protocol and tradition. Netanyahu accepted despite warnings from the Democratic party leadership. For the first time in American history, Israel became a partisan issue; that continues to this day.

Countless Jewish organizations lobbying on Israel’s behalf exist. Yet polls indicate that Israel  is worse off  in measures of American public opinion and even within the Jewish community. The American people remain centrist, American Jews are  becoming increasingly liberal, and Israel may be the big loser. Yet rightward leaning Jews continue to praise Donald Trump as Israel’s savior. Maybe we need a new Jewish organization to help extract Israel from this mess, a good deal of which is of Israel’s own making?

Over the last month, Donald Trump shutdown the American government because the Democrats would not allow him to fulfill a campaign promise: construction of a border wall that would keep people (primarily Hispanics), from entering the country. 800,000 government employees were without work and not being paid. The federal government, in many areas, was coming to a halt. Last weekend, in fact, the Air Traffic control control system’s lack of controllers caused some airports to temporarily close. In essence, according to some officials, the fool-in-chief was bringing the government “to the brink” of being able to safely operate. Those highlighted words brought me back to remembering October of 1962, when those words were repeatedly used to describe what became known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, when President Kennedy and the Russians were truly “to the brink,” but this time of nuclear war.

Looking back the 57 years since the Missile Crisis, events have brought us to the “edge” many times. But, the question now before us is whether or not Trump’s shutdown is the harbinger of a future in which the words “to the brink” describe a real situation similar to what occurred in October of 1962?

Think about how many events over the last two years—confrontation with North Korea, threats from ISIS, disputes with our allies, disintegration in Syria, etc.— could leave us in serious security situations. I didn’t even mention what is likely the biggest crisis of all: a President compromised by the Russians. That possibility has led to media, and serious public discussion, of Trump being a traitor. With all of these events having the possibility of bringing us “to the brink” of serious military and/or domestic conflict, why are we doing so little to prevent a catastrophe?

As Trump was stocking his administration primarily with sycophants, fools, malevolent personalities and racists, some of his choices allowed us to feel slightly safer: Mattis at Defense, Tillerson at State, Haley at the UN, and Kelly at Homeland Security, being the most obvious examples. The belief was that the three Generals could put a brake on dangerous moves by their boss. But, they are no longer members of the administration. The fool-in-chief is relatively alone, making decisions within a theatre-of-the-absurd. We should therefore count our blessings that the House is no longer in Republican control and that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker. She’s clearly tougher and wiser than just about anyone else serving in either House of Congress.

So, for the next two years, we may have to rely on Congress—and especially to keep us relatively safe. But that’s not sufficient. Impeachment is an option which could, with the release of the Mueller Report, become a real option. But to remove the fool means Republican Senators will demonstrate courage and recognize their responsibility to the country.How likely is that?

What else can be done? Every American politician—especially at the federal level—needs     to begin operating on a crisis level. The President has already done a massive amount of damage and brought us to the brink of of political turmoil, nuclear confrontation, economic crisis and military conflict. A few days ago, leaders of the Intelligence community told Congress their concerns about many of these pending crises. A day later, Trump declared they were “wrong.” Now, America’s leaders must step in and use any means at their disposal to prevent a cataclysmic event from occurring. A campaign of truth-telling amid massive media exposure is required. Business as usual cannot be tolerated at a precarious time.

Next Tuesday, February 5th, Trump is to give his State-of-the-Union (SOU) speech to Congress. When better time to begin an appropriate demonstration of concern and protest?  At one of President Obama’s SOU addresses, a Republican Congressman screamed “Liar.” That was neither proper nor salutary to any cause. It was simply rude and crude. Instead, I am suggesting that Democrats remain absolutely silent from the moment Trump is announced as he enters the House Chamber to the time he departs. They should also remain in their seats throughout the speech and depart—together—after the President does. It should be a recognition that business cannot go on as usual until the evil, hatred, mockery and anti-human policies of this administration cease. While Trump may not be a traitor nor impeached and removed, it is obvious he has committed illegal acts (e.g. by violating the Emoluments Clause in the U.S. Constitution).

Charles Dickens provides the appropriate coda: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Let’s move now on hastening the “best” of times for everyone.

Last week, I suggested that the Democratic Party candidate for President in 2020 must be smart, likable, and hard-working. That person must also have an unblemished record of past achievement.

Since Hillary ran a horrendous campaign, losing three key rust-belt states by a total of approximately 77,000 votes (she never even visited Wisconsin during the months leading to the election), a winning candidate must—minimally—be able to navigate the electoral map as well as the Republicans did. If Donald Trump is their candidate in 2020, identity politics will remain the name of the game. The Democrats should therefore nominate someone who can appeal to the Republican base, their own traditional voters, independents, and those who voted for Obama in the past but supported Trump in 2016. That is a tall, but manageable, order. To secure these diverse constituencies real people, not algorithms, must guide electoral strategy. That’s why an excellent campaign staff must work together with an excellent candidate. Let the handicapping begin. The current crop of declared and presumed candidates include:

Former Congressman John Delaney, a centrist businessman from Maryland who is, quite frankly, dull. There is little in his past to indicate he can beat Trump, and that must be the key determinant for everyone’s sake. The other former Congressman, Beto O’Rourke, is a charismatic Texan, obviously smart, and politically astute. But, he couldn’t defeat one of America’s most disliked politicians (even among Republicans), Ted Cruz. O’Rourke is young and has plenty of time to demonstrate why he should be nominated. 2020 is too important to gamble with inexperience.

Senator Kirstin Gillibrand became a New York Senator when Hillary Clinton was chosen Secretary-of-State.  She has never run a national campaign nor offers much in the way of having a stand-out, unique career. Elizabeth Warren is charismatic, an excellent speaker, and offers innovative ideas. Unfortunately, before the campaign even began, she made major mistakes that allowed Trump to bait her.

New Jersey Senator Corey Booker has also not had much national exposure beyond his relatively unimpressive performance at the Kavanaugh hearings. He is, too, a potential candidate down the line, someone whose service in a Cabinet position could demonstrate sufficient gravitas for a Presidential run.

Julian Castro was an Obama Cabinet Secretary and Mayor of San Antonio, Texas. He is the only Hispanic currently in the Presidential discussion. He is extremely articulate, and has sufficient national experience. He could and should be considered for the number two position on any Democratic ticket. Once campaigning really begins he will surely be tested by the voters.

Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio,  has consistently been winning elections in a state where Democrats have not been doing well. His appeal to traditional Democrats (including the working class), as well as Independents, is a given, demonstrated by success at the ballot box. He is, at this point, sort of the Democratic leadership’s second choice to lead the ticket should others falter.

Down to two. This week, Senator Kamala Harris announced her candidacy for President. She should be regarded as the obvious choice for the number two position alongside former Vice-President Joe Biden. Why?

Senator Harris is highly intelligent, personable, from a major state, and won’t take crap from anyone. As California’s Attorney General, she built a record of accomplishment. Her recent Judiciary Committee appearances demonstrate leadership and strength. She also made it obvious that she knows how to ask questions and demand answers from recalcitrant witnesses. She is an excellent politician who has the demeanor and presence to stand the test of a long campaign. As a person of color,  it is likely she can attract and secure increased turnout from those ethnic communities that abandoned Hillary.

For President, who is a better candidate than Joe Biden? A working-class background, legislative and executive experience and extremely likable, even Republicans are complimentary. Remember, the key and necessary goal for the sake of the country is to defeat Trump. Yes, Biden is in his mid-seventies, but so is our fool-in-chief. While the latter shows his age, especially by way of what comes out of his mouth, Biden seems unaffected by the usual age-related ailments.

In sum, a ticket of Biden-Harris has the best chance of winning, and again making America a welcoming, safe and secure country that we can all be proud of.

It is January 2019 and the mid-term elections went extremely well for the Democrats. They didn’t secure control over the Senate, but they won the House by electing an additional 40 Members. The Democrats also selected the most effective candidate for Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Could you imagine any of the other self-offered candidates for that post facing-off against Trump during the current Government shutdown?

Okay, the Democratic Party made the right choice for Speaker, but the big test of their sagacity and wisdom is now before them: choosing their 2020 candidates for President and Vice-President. Lots of people want the top job. For the sake of the  country and perhaps the health of the entire planet, they better make the correct choice. Of course, it is relatively early and events may force changes in the equation: Trump may start a war, be impeached and removed from office. He could, faced with Nixon-style alternatives, resign with the promise of a pardon. Such options would produce Mike Pence as President, but the Democratic battle-plan for the White House would not require severe modifications.

The key to success is to not repeat the mistakes of 2016. A smart, competent, hard-working and likable candidate is required, matched by the best campaign staff that can be recruited. Hillary turned out to be disaster waiting to happen: overconfidence, ego, algorithms, and complacency payed a large role in the electoral fiasco that occurred.

The Democratic candidates for President are and likely to be: Senators Sherrod Brown, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cory Booker. Former Congressmen Beto O’Rourke and John Delaney, as well as Obama Cabinet Secretary Julian Castro, will also be in the race. I do not believe Sen. Bernie Sanders will make the run.  Finally, Joe Biden is, according to press reports, preparing to enter the competition.

With the above list in mind, and the 2016 campaign serving as a haunting reminder of what could have been, it’s time to handicap the race and offer some perspective.

Although turnout was okay for the Democrats in 2016, and promising two years later, they must do better in the necessary states. To lose by a combination of 77,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, must not happen again. The so-called political “experts,” including Hillary and Obama, thought the former was going to win, so they didn’t pay enough attention to the demands of the electoral college.  The Republicans designed their campaign on exactly that, and will do so again.

Democrats, especially liberals, usually dislike gaming an election by formulating and manipulating a plan on the basis of identity politics. Nevertheless, they cannot afford to ignore the concerns and fears of their respective constituencies in each state. Otherwise, it’s as that noted philosopher Yogi Berra so eloquently put it, “deja vu all over again” for the 2020 election.

In this context, next week I will reveal my choices for the Democratic Party nominees, as well as examine the electoral prospects of those mentioned.

It (he?) makes no sense. A few weeks ago we were told ISIS was defeated and America would soon be withdrawing its  troops from Syria. Now we have been informed that it may take years to withdraw. Trump has also shut down the government in order to blackmail recalcitrant lawmakers to fund a “wall.” Well, actually it may be a “fence” or maybe a “barrier.” Oh, Mexico would pay for it we have been told since 2015; in fact, it is the American people who will bear its cost. I can go on and on with this nonsense.

It has also recently been reported that even Republican lawmakers privately admit  Trump is, at best, “unhinged.” In fact, his behavior indicates serious psychological problems. The solution (other than impeachment, which remains, at this time, the best, but politically unlikely answer), is to counter Trump’s problematic behavior at every opportunity. But, thanks to the winners of my “5 Despicable Enablers” of 2018, that is unlikely to readily occur. Like some of their predecessors, Hitler’s Albert Speer and Lyndon Johnson’s Robert McNamara being notable self-admitted examples, it is clear they know better, but continue to close their eyes and cover their ears regarding Trump. They swore allegiance to the Constitution, but instead assist and enable a deranged President who continues to harm the country and ignore our system of laws.

At the top of the list is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. His actions during the earlier days of the Obama administration, when he announced that he would do everything he could to impede the President’s legislative agenda, was a clear demonstration that he would use his position to increase his power and project his racist agenda on the country. Under Trump, despite private—and sometimes public—early misgivings, McConnell has maneuvered whatever the President has desired through Congress. The Majority Leader does not appear unhinged, just hateful. He’s not dumb, just malicious.

Number 2 is Mike Pence, Vice-President and Trump robot. Publicly, he stands beside the President, usually silent and expressionless. At cabinet meetings, he sheds fawning praise on his boss. He views himself as moral, the picture-perfect Christian fundamentalist. In fact, by enabling Trump’s misogyny, racism and worst tendencies, he is a self-righteous disgrace to what Jesus represents. He is the would-be President.

Number 3 is Senator Lindsey Graham, someone whose behavior brings dishonor to the memory of his “friend,” John McCain. Graham’s episodically displayed beliefs seem based on whatever will draw him into the limelight. He dishonors the Senate and the nation. The tragedy is that if he actually shared and acted upon McCain’s principles, he could have been an effective roadblock to the current insanity in Congress.

Number 4 is Sarah Huckabee Sanders. She is the Goebbels of this administration, practitioner of the “big lie,” as well as countless small ones. As Trump’s press secretary, she is an enabler of the worst sort as she misleads, dissimulates, and makes excuses for Trump’s policies and behavior.

Number 5, Paul Ryan, should be remembered as “the man who could,” smart, energetic, and seemingly trustworthy. He was, as Speaker of the House, a knowing enabler of the Trump agenda, someone very much in the Robert McNamara mold, a person who understands how government must operate if it is to have a salutary effect on the American people. As third-in-line to the Presidency, our now former Speaker, brought dishonor to the job, becoming a rubber-stamp for the President’s insidious machinations.

There it is, the worst five. So many others remain. With the House now led by the Democrats, we will soon see how effective they are in freeing the country from the scourge of Trump and his cohorts.

Over the last week, I have been listening to a superb podcast, Bagman, narrated by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. It is an intricate—and startling—examination of former Vice President Spiro Agnew’s resignation from office in the fall of 1973. Parallells to what is going on with our current White House occupant, Donald Trump, proves anew that history is our best guide to the present.

Most of us, as we watch the Trump debacle unfold, consider its best historical precedent to be Watergate and Richard Nixon. Certainly, the historical similarities exist: both Nixon and Trump are figures of ill-repute, crooks, pathological liars and dangerous. Agnew was also a crook and liar, but what happened to and with him, may provide the best solution as to how the American people and government should deal with Trump. Let me explain.

Spiro Agnew was a Republican Baltimore County Executive who went on to become Maryland’s Governor. In 1968, he was chosen by Richard Nixon as his choice for Vice-President. Elected twice, he served in that role until his resignation. During the entire time, from Agnew as County Executive thru his tenure as Vice-President, he was receiving bribes and kick-backs. He even received some of them in his White House office.

Trump seems to have functioned as the overseer of a vast criminal enterprise and real estate empire known as the Trump Organization. He, too, received funds under questionable circumstances, as the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits such payments, has been knowingly violated. Trump’s Russian ties, under which money may have been “laundered,” tax laws violated, and bribery a possibility, are all out there. The issue of espionage in the current situation, is missing from Agnew’s case.

With Agnew forced to resign and admit his guilt, may we find, in studying how this was accomplished, a salutary solution to our present Trumpian dilemmas?

The current President of the United States is clearly incompetent and probably guilty of a number of statutory offenses. With the likelihood increasing that impeachment and/or an indictment is in the offing, would it not be best for the country to move towards securing an Agnew-like resolution? A forced resignation of the President, perhaps even a pardon for him and family members, seems a better alternative than drawn-out impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate. Even with an election in 2020, almost two more years of Trump and his Enablers will put this country in additional danger. At the minimum, it would make us–and the world–weaker and less safe.