For the first time in its history, our Great Republic will shortly have a convicted felon as its President. Somewhat surprisingly given that some of its members have shown themselves to be susceptible to influence and contemptuous of generally recognized maxims of judicial conduct, the Supreme Court rejected his effort to postpone his sentencing. There was no legal basis for doing so, but it has become uncertain that the Supreme Court finds a legal basis for its decisions necessary in these dark times.
But he's a duly elected convicted felon, and if we're to allow, if not encourage, felons to hold even the highest of public offices, then that is the way of our nation, now. It may be the case that we'll balk at electing certain felons, I suppose. Perhaps electing a convicted murderer is something the public will decline to do, for example. But the field is open, now; the race is on. Who will be the next convicted felon to grace the office of the Presidency?
It's difficult to be the first, in this case. Perhaps that's why there was a struggle to avoid having that distinction when he became President. Now, though, he may be a portent of things to come; a pioneer. The first felon of many.
Ultimately, of course, electing anyone to any office in our Glorious Union is more than anything a matter of money. Influencing those elected is a matter of money as well. Witness the wealthy of our nation rushing to "donate" millions to finance the inauguration. What is planned? One wonders. As there seems to be no limit to the vulgarity of our politics, it's hard not to imagine a kind of combination Vegas show, circus, and displays of military might given the rhetoric which flourishes at this time. When, though, has a "negotiation" to acquire lands included the threat or use of armed force unless the lands are transferred?
Interested though I am in the history of ancient Rome, I'm not fond of comparisons between it and the United States. But I can't help but think of what Plutarch is said to have written regarding the influence of money on the Roman state. It began to determine what votes were made, who was elected, what they did; then it took over the law courts; then the legions; and then came the rule of Emperors.
I'm not certain about the military, but it seems our elections and elected leaders have succumbed to the wealthy and certain plutocrats in particular, and the law courts, including the highest court in the land, are more and more beholden. Emperors we may not have, yet. But we don't seem to have many qualms about those who rule us. So, who knows?
