The Ease Of Corruption

 

There are figures in history renowned for their venality, dishonesty and depravity.  There have been great prodigies of corruption.  The names of Tallyrand and the Borgias come to mind readily enough. Our Great Republic (?) has had its share--Tammany Hall in the time of Bill Tweed was an impressive vehicle for graft.  The Teapot Dome scandal is a remarkable example of rot in politics.

But there's sonething about the current batch of degenerates running the country that makes them extraordinary.  It's certainly not their intelligence.  The squalid figure at their head is no "Napoleon of corruption."  He and his lackeys are mere brutes; pigs rooting for truffles or trifles.  Selfishness and avarice are a part of them. It's in their nature to be corrupt and to corrupt others.

And that's what makes them unique.  Acquiring money and resources through foul means is what they do.  Insider trading, the creation of slush funds, acceptance of gifts in return for favors, granting government contracts to friends or contractors in which they hold an equity interest, is as natural to them as belching or farting is to a hobo.

More than that, corruption is to them a matter of pride.  They don't try to dissimulate their depravity.  They flaunt it.  It's no surprise that their chief does so in the most tacky, florid way possible, plastering golden gimcrakery over every open space.  Grossness is the essence of the corrupt.

It's difficult to imagine how this will end.  Periods of excess are sometimes followed by periods of repression, but for that to take place there must be a recognition of what was excessive.  Do we still know what's excessive, now? What once was excessive corruption is now normal, even expected.  

This prevents what's taking place from taking on the wit and dignity of a parody.  It's so obvious it might be one in a reasonable world, but it has become our sad reality.

Sanctuary! Sanctuary!

 

Here we see Quasimodo, splendidly played by Charles Laughton, crying "Sanctuary!" and claiming the protection of the sacred space of Notre Dame Cathedral for Esmeralda, having first dramatically snatched her away from the noose.  She was to be hung for witchcraft.  I couldn't bring myself to use images from Disney's weird version of Victor Hugo's novel.

"Sanctuary" was originally used to refer to a place sacred to a divinity and so apart from the profane world of men and women.  Gradually, it came to signify a place where human law did not apply.  So, at least in theory, a fugitive from temporal law or power having entered the sacred space could claim sanctuary and be beyond the reach of the temporal authorities; in effect, immune while in that space.  In practice, it seems that this rule was disregarded in some cases.  Sometimes, this immunity became a subject of negotiation.  For example, those having authority over the sanctuary might allow the person claiming protection to be taken into custody if it was promised that person would not be killed.

These sad days, we hear of "sanctuary cities" or jurisdictions.  Those in them aren't immune from the application of all law, however.  Instead, those municipalities refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities, much to the chagrin of conservatives, who now, unlike their predecessors, delight in the relentless enforcement and imposition of federal law, everywhere, local government be damned.

It's unfortunate that sanctuaries don't exist which can be fled to avoid the ever-expanding power of the federal government generally.  If churches, or at least that part of them surrounding the altar, were such sanctuaries how crowded they would be! It's a remarkable thing to see federal troops which were once used to enforce the rights of citizens to education and travel, to vote and assemble, now used largely to intimidate and to quash alleged "emergencies."  Emergencies in our Glorious Union now seem ubiquitous, judging from the peculiar logic of El Presidente and his lackeys.  Anything which can be used as a pretense for the exercise of Executive Authority will do.

O tempora, O mores!  One can almost hear Cicero crying out about the decadence of our times and customs, and the morals or lack of them of our representatives in all branches of government.  He was saddened by the decline of integrity in Republican Rome, soon to become autocratic and imperial.  It seems today that integrity has not merely declined, but has disappeared.  When did our legislators and judges of the high court become so meek, so obliging, so obsequious, so craven, so venal?  Have they (and have we) become willing victims of despotism?

Many of us seem to have Daddy Issues.  I don't refer to those issues which it's claimed by some involve the sexual activities or imagination of certain females.  Instead I refer to what seems to be a kind of creepy insecurity and desire to be led, if not dominated, by a father figure who will tell us what to do.  Presumably, he'll protect us as well.  Various figures in or on the outskirts of politics have voiced their fascination with and desire for a Daddy,  They may want to be spanked, poor creatures, or even better see someone else spanked.  Perhaps most characteristic of this childish desire for a Daddy is the relief that's felt at the fact that responsibility and authority is transferred to someone else.  Daddy will fix it, whatever it is.

Daddy will certainly fix us, in any case, they hope.  But some of us hope to find sanctuary even from Daddy.

No Sense of Decency

 

"Decency" is a word which seems to have a fairly broad definition.  It seems associated for the most part with propriety; conduct which conforms to what is considered proper, generally in a moral sense.  Those without decency act in such a manner as to call into question their worth or quality as acceptable members of society.  Someone with no sense of decency acts dishonorably, and fails to conform to standards people are expected to meet in their dealings with others.

A famous example of the use of the word is what took place in the course of hearings involving the infamous Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin, known as the Army-McCarthy hearings.  These addressed McCarthy's claims that the army was filled with Communists.

Joseph Welch was the lawyer for the army.  During one of the hearings McCarthy revealed that a young member of Welch's staff once signed a petition supportive of the Communist Party.  There was apparently no claim he joined the party at any time, but McCarthy made the statement in an effort to assert that the staffer and others defending the army, including Welch himself, had Communist sympathies.

Being associated with the Communist Party in those times could ruin a career or even life. Welch famously chastised McCarthy in response, accusing him of character assassination of the staffer for no good reason and asking "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" It was a dramatic moment, and it's considered that this response triggered the decline in McCarthy's popularity and influence.

As a result of this moment, which was made during a televised hearing and was widely replayed, McCarthy was thought by many to have acted improperly, in a dishonorable manner; to have been unjust and cruel in an effort to score a trivial point. He acted indecently. 

I'm uncertain whether something similar could take place now. Certainly if it did now all would know of it and would see it almost instantly, but I don't think it would have the same impact.  That's because I feel many of us, and most and perhaps all of those who currently dominate and influence our plutocracy, have no sense of decency.  As a consequence, they can't be shamed as others were in the past.

What we see enacted now is being done not merely without thought but as if considerations of justice and honesty are no longer of any importance.  There are no standards which apply, or at least no standards which those in power believe people think should be met.  Moral conduct, and in particular honorable conduct, is neither expected nor thought to be admirable in these sad times.  It is only important that a policy or agenda is advanced, or what is desired is acquired, without incurring a loss.

We may have become an indecent society, or nation, or civilization.

Non Mea Culpa

 

Catholics of a certain age (like me) said aloud, each Sunday, the Latin words "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" while reciting the Confiteor.  That was a confession of our many sins we were all required to make not only to God, but to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Michael the Archangel, John the Baptist, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, all the saints and, if memory serves, most everybody else.  Each of us repeated that those sins were committed through our fault.  So, "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" which translates as "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault."

While saying these words, we would beat or rap on our chests with our fists. The Confiteor was intended to be a humble acknowledgement of our failings and errors and admission that we were responsible for them.

It is yet another example of Catholicism's odd celebration of our sinful nature. But it's also, more positively, an example of moral courage and integrity.  The devil and his angels aren't blamed for our wrongs and mistakes, nor are other people.  To use a modern phrase I think is suspect, we "own" our sins.  We don't seek to describe them as trivial; we don't argue that they're sins everyone commits, and therefore are insignificant and we shouldn't be singled out for criticism; we don't misrepresent them for self-serving reasons; we don't claim that we're unfairly treated when asked to account for them.

In other words, we're not miserable, cowardly, hypocritical, weak, shifty weasels. Instead, we're honorable people, who have the courage to admit fault and the character to do better.

In what's being called "Signalgate" weasels abound. Perhaps they follow the example of their chief, who is never willing to acknowledge fault. But it's particularly difficult to avoid blame when a mistake has been admitted and the mistake is evidently one no knowledgeable person would have made and could have had serious consequences.  Seeking to avoid blame in those circumstances and becoming increasingly shrill in doing so merely make one appear cowardly, contemptible and untrustworthy.

Those who lack moral courage are likely to be cruel. They're also likely to be crass and juvenile.  We see these traits in the Group Chat in question but also in the conduct of this regime and the content of its self-righteous communications.

Abandon all Thought Ye Who Enter Here

 

If there was something along the lines of a gate or portal by which people entered the service of the regime now infesting the government of our Glorious Union, I imagine that the words appearing in the title to this post would be emblazoned on it.  With the substitution of a single word, they of course are inscribed on the Gate into Hell in Dante's Inferno.

Some might say the word substituted, "hope," should be returned to the wording and made part of an inscription to be placed over an entrance into the USA itself.

We know that the titular head of the regime believes personal loyalty to him to be a condition of participation in it.  There is nothing less conducive to intelligence and critical thinking. What it requires is unthinking obedience to commands.  Questioning them, or even considering their appropriateness is disloyal.  Allegiance is owed to a single person, rightness is determined using a single standard.

As a mechanism to discourage thinking, inquiry and the application of intelligence to problem solving, the requirement of unquestioned loyalty is more effective than dogmatism.  Dogmatism is the absolute acceptance and arrogant application of particular ideas and positions. Thought may come into play in deciding which ideas one accepts.  Loyalty, however, is an emotional attachment, sometimes combined with hero-worship.

To an extent, dogmatism has played a part in most administrations.  In the past, the two political parties have not been radically different in certain matters, but have disagreed on questions of social policy.  The social policies favored by the party in power have dictated executive actions in many instances, which has meant that those actions have been undertaken mostly because dogmatism demanded it.

But in the current case, dogmatism is combined with personal loyalty of a kind typically granted to the leader of a cult.  The result is the implementation of policies consistent with both directed to ends espoused by the leader without regard to consequences.  Why consider consequences of sweeping actions when they are self-evidently appropriate because they're taken in pursuit of the desires of the leader?  No other considerations are significant.

So, for example, in the haste to terminate government employees in accordance with cult and dogma, mistakes are made.  Essential personnel are fired.  Then efforts are made to rehire them.

This unthinking compliance with the demands of cult and dogma is especially dangerous given the efforts made to extend presidential authority.

This is what our system has brought about, apparently. It may be corrupt, or we may be corrupted.

 

The Fools on the Hill

 

Benjamin Disraeli, the brilliant Prime Minister of England, once said:  "There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is not capable; for in politics there is no honour."  This observation seems particularly applicable at this time, especially regarding the Republican Party.  But we must add to it the observation that while there is no honour in politics, nor is there courage or even intelligence as to that party in particular as the best evidence is it is for the most part made up of individuals so craven, so corrupt, so entirely spineless as to seem incredible.

How do we explain, otherwise, the fact that the Republicans making up the Senate and the House have become mere slaves to the grotesque creature who leads their party?  They cringe and obey him whatever he does and says.  If they had any intelligence or sense of history, they would understand that it's against their interests as members of the Legislative Branch to allow him and his lackeys to emasculate them and the government.  They've become political castrati singing his tune in high, piping voices.  They mince about the stage on which his bizarre opera is being played out, as if flaunting their servility.

Some of them gave lip service to the sanctity of our Constitution and the insurrection attempt in the past.  But they've changed their tune.  Now they parrot the claims he makes that January 6th was a lovefest.  They sanction pardons of those who threatened and injured members of law enforcement who strove to save their sorry asses on that day, which marked the end of American exceptionalism.  They fall over themselves in competition to praise his most fantastic claims and proposals.  They nod approvingly as he wrecks havoc.  The struggle to defend his caprices.

They shamelessly prostitute themselves in his service, as if he is their pimp.  We hear that some of his acolytes have joyfully said that "Daddy's home" as he took office.  There's something odd, indeed disturbing, when grown men bleat such a claim in their excitement.  How long have they eagerly awaited their Daddy's return, poor fellows?  They cherish their Daddy's approval.  They pander to those he panders to, simpering in their passion to please him.

What they do makes so little sense, and is such an extreme abandonment and surrender of their dignity and authority, that an argument can be made that they're victims of the psychological condition of infantilism--the retention of childish physical, mental and emotional characteristics in adult life.  How is it possible for them to have any self-respect?

We can only hope that they recover themselves somehow, and remember that they're supposed to be representatives of the people with obligations under the Constitution they've sworn to preserve, protect and defend.  Before it's too late.

The Ugly Americans

The Ugly American is a film made in 1963 based on a book published in 1959. The film starred Marlon Brando, seen in the poster above sporting a tiny mustache. (I've never known why such mustaches were allowed and, it seems, popular).

It was set in a fictional country in Southeast Asia, rather obviously intended to represent South Vietnam.  There God's Favorite Country was engaged in a struggle with the Commies for the territory and the hearts and minds of its people, assuming they were judged to have them.

The Americans were portrayed in both book and film as isolated, privileged, ignorant and unconcerned with the people.  This was, as far as they were concerned, purely a matter of money and power. The Commies made a point of helping the people with food, infrastructure and weapons and would fight with them when needed. Not surprisingly the people eventually turned away from our Great Republic. 

The "ugly" American in the book/film was a plain, unassuming, common sort of fellow. He was a civil engineer who actually tried to know and  help the people of the nation. As may be expected the ugly American wasn't in fact the engineer, but the glittering, ignorant, arrogant movers and shakers who looked down on him and those he tried to help. 

Which brings me at last to the subject matter of this post.

The word "ugly" has more than one definition. The one I have in mind is "Repulsive or offensive; objectionable." Some of those making up the freak show which is our nation's cabinet and higher levels of government are undoubtedly ugly in the more common sense.  But to note that is merely unkind. Of more concern are their repulsive, cruel and what is more self-righteous actions.

We start with the extraordinary claim that making weak nations kowtow to ours is somehow a sign of our nation's greatness.  This is how a weak person thinks.  U.S. Grant considered the U.S. war against Mexico a contemptable crime. Who knows what the current occupant will do in his quest to triumph over the small and helpless. He will expect homage for these "triumphs."

Then there is the malicious, petty action ending protection needed by public sevants with whom he did n't agree.  And the conditioning of federal aid to those desperately in need of it because of natural disasters on state and local government doing what he says.

These are only a few of the caperings of the ugly who rule us now. I was inclined to note the frivolous attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship, but after all the Supreme Court has it shares of uglies too; their brown noses are becoming darker than their judicial robes.

The First Felon

 

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?

"Let's to it pell-mell..."

 

According to dictionaries I've seen, to do something pell-mell is to do it in a confused, disorderly manner.  Pictured above is a copy of a painting by William Trego called The Pell-Mell Charge.  I'm uncertain whether it's intended to portray the charge depicted as being confused and disorderly, or to indicate that the result of the charge is a confused, disorderly fight.  One would think an effort would be made to avoid a confused, disorderly charge.

The title of this post is a portion of a sentence appearing in Shakespeare's Richard III.  It's from a speech given by the character Richard to his troops prior to the final battle of his kingship.  The full quote is: "Let's to it pell-mell; if not to heaven, then hand in hand in hell."  In this context I think going to battle "pell-mell" means rushing to it defiantly and recklessly, without care but with wild fury.

On a silly note before indulging in grim reflection, I note that "pell-mell" is not to be confused with Pall Malls cigarettes, renowned by ad writers in days past for their "natural mildness."  Pall Mall cigarette packs were emblazoned, inexplicably I think, with the motto In hoc signo vinces (in this sign, conquer) which is said to have appeared along with a cross in a vision granted to Constantine the Great before the battle of the Milvian Bridge.  It's a kind of curse to be saddled with a memory which recalls such trivia.

I find myself thinking that voting in the forthcoming election for president is something best done pell-mell.  If we don't find ourselves in heaven after it takes place, then at least we should be hand in hand in hell.  Voting in this case is a kind of expression of defiance; defiance of the misinformation, deceit, venality, malice, pomposity, dithering, group-thinking and ignorance which has typified the campaigning and media coverage of this freak show, 24/7 as we like to say.  It's clear to me that one of the candidates is despicable, a horror inflicted on the nation, but how to explain or even understand the fact that a significant number of people favor him without condemning them as dupes or evil actors, something which should be avoided in characterizing one's countrymen or countrywomen (or whatever they think themselves to be)?

But in these times, is it possible or prudent to believe what we hear, read or see regarding the election or, indeed, anything else transpiring as related in the media or in social media?  So much of what is communicated can be manipulated now.  Lying is ubiquitous, unsurprisingly as most of us are exceedingly gullible--why bother learning or speaking what is true in this climate, where so many are compelled to believe whatever they think satisfying, or whatever is repeated endlessly?  We must vote our conscience no matter how confused and disorderly our politics has become.

Ultimately, it may be that now all we can rely on in making a judgment is the character of the candidates as presented.  Not that character cannot be faked; it can.  But one of the candidates hasn't tried to hide his nature and his plans.  He may be incapable of doing so, being so perfect in his self-regard, so convinced of his own superiority and the homage of his followers, and the craven nature of those who are members of the political party he has corrupted.  And the character displayed is that of someone who shouldn't be trusted with power over others.

So, let's to it pell-mell.  We'll get the president we deserve; and let's hope we're not undeserving of a good one.

Reflections on the Glass Ceiling

It's been some time since I posted here.  Much has happened worthy of comment, but I've felt no real desire to do so.  Call it a kind of disgust at worst, resignation at best.  Despite the fact that the presidential contest has become more interesting, I remain baffled by the fact that the Republican candidate remains popular with many of the voters here in God's Favorite Country.  It's a testament to the fact that a liar--not just any liar but a kind of titan or demi-god of lying, though the argument can be made that he's simply vastly deluded--can capture the hearts and minds of people who are citizens of our Great Republic. It doesn't speak well for us.

But I feel inclined to comment on the metaphor of the "Glass Ceiling" normally used to refer to a sort of invisible barrier which, wrongly, prevents certain people from achieving a higher place in the hierarchy in question.  More specifically, it refers to that barrier which will, presumably, be demolished if a woman is elected president of our Glorious Union.

The fabled Glass Ceiling figured in an earlier presidential election, as we all recall.  If I remember correctly a representation of it was on display, ready to be broken, at the campaign headquarters of Hilary Clinton on election night in 2016.  But while it seems her victory was anticipated, it remained unbroken.  Too much was taken for granted.

We males have historically been confused in our understanding of women generally, but especially in particular where politics and positions or events of importance are concerned.  It's interesting to consider whether our conception of them is most unrealistic and inaccurate when we become consumed by the belief that they are either inferior or superior to men; either better or worse than men.

If a Glass Ceiling exists preventing them from obtaining positions of power or importance, one would think it does because they're considered inferior in certain respects; or at least lacking in certain respects or by nature unable to be adequately concerned with certain matters.  But a Glass Ceiling also may be a barrier even when they're considered superior to men.

They have been considered superior to or better than men throughout our history in specific ways.  Most obviously they've been so thought of with respect to raising children and minding a home.  For a very long time that was considered to be their place in life, an obvious inference some thought from the fact that women, not men, bear children.  That view in itself would be sufficient to create a Glass Ceiling.

They've also been considered superior throughout our history, again in other specific ways.

Sometimes, this conception of superiority is expressed by implication, sometimes expressly.  Boethius, for example, portrayed Philosophy (capital "p") as a woman, come to chide him for his weakness when a captive of Theodoric the Great.  She recalled him to Philosophy, and the knowledge that success, fame, fortune, persecution and death were trivial things, like life on Earth in general.  She was the incarnation of Philosophy, the best of us, in his Consolation of Philosophy which he wrote while imprisoned.  It's to be hoped she provided him some consolation while he was bludgeoned to death by his captors.

Dante in his Divine Comedy was guided by the pagan Virgil through Hell and Purgatory, but of course a pagan could not enter the kingdom of heaven and so the woman, or spirit of a woman, named Beatrice was his guide in Paradise.  Beatrice may or may not have been based on the woman, also named Beatrice, Dante loved in a courtly fashion--which is to say not physically.  In any event she served to represent religious faith, grace, enlightenment and love as portrayed in this work, a higher being than Dante himself, and men in general.

Then there is Goethe, who ended his Faust with an idealized woman redeeming the protagonist, and the words "Eternal Woman (or the Eternal Feminine) draws us upward." (Das Ewig-Weibliche ziet uns hinan).  Woman is in a sense nobler, more attuned to God, wiser, more spiritual than man; a kind of goddess.  This is Goethe's Faust; Christopher Marlow in his Doctor Faustus ended his play by having him dragged down to Hell where he damn well belonged.

But this perception of women as better...sometimes much better...then men also serves to bar her from earthly affairs such as politics and business and the professions because she's JUST TOO GOOD.  A woman cannot bear with or make decisions regarding the matters and people which and who must be dealt with, let alone serve as a commander in war.  Hence women are precious, to be protected, put on the proverbial pedestal.

So the Glass Ceiling where women are concerned is the result of conceiving of them as both superior and inferior to men.  Kipling of course took a different approach.  He famously wrote that the female of the species is more deadly than the male.  This interesting view seems to be based on a portrayal of women as reckless and even fanatic in some respects and in some manner, related primarily to the protection of the family.  But again, this would disqualify women from reasonably making decisions that must be made in the world of affairs.

Perhaps we're just too enamored with categorizing in our thinking.  Perhaps this tendency is a kind of bequest to posterity by Aristotle, that Relentless Categorizer.  That hinders us in our acceptance of possibilities.  The Glass Ceiling may be broken if we can recognize each other as humans, far more alike than different.

The State of Gracelessness

As shown above, "gracelessness" has two meanings, one being secular, the other religious.  Our state, I propose, is one of gracelessness in both senses.

According to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, grace in its religious sense is of two different kinds.  It's first a kind of favor or boon of the Almighty, encouraging us to seek and obtain what's needed to become Children of God; it's then what the soul has as a result.  Note the favor--we're not worthy of being God's children to begin with, presumably because of Original Sin.  So God in his goodness must provide the opportunity.  If we accept the gift given, then we may enter heaven, though most of us must burn, though full of hope, in Purgatory before we have access to it.  If we don't, then to Hell with us.  We're irretrievably nasty.  We are as is noted above, depraved, corrupt.

A person is graceless in the secular sense if lacking elegance.  A graceless person is clumsy, has no sense of propriety, and is lacking in wit and socially awkward; in a word, is unattractive.  An oaf.

That we're graceless in a secular sense is established by many things and in many ways.  Most publically perhaps it's apparent from the popularity of the personage I'll call for purposes of this post "Agent Orange" (or should that be Aging Orange?).  Now matched with a baby-faced clone or Mini-Me, he is to all appearances gracelessness incarnate.  His demeanor and speech may also be described as ugly.  His efforts at wit are mere insults; so for that matter are his efforts at argument.  He's boastful and crude.  His followers are equally crass when they're not simply moral cowards who lack the courage to defy him or denounce him publicly.  

It's unsurprising that his followers treat education as something secondary, and seek to regulate it.  It's also unsurprising that their attacks on the person who is now Agent Orange's opponent involve fearmongering related to education.  Education may expose people to grace in the secular sense.  If there is one thing they fear in particular, it's that their children may be different than they are.  Because of the American fascination with sex, their primary concern is that their children will be different from them sexually, but they fear also that through education they'll become less ignorant of the world than they think they should be, and be exposed to people and ideas different from them as well.

That we're graceless in a more religious, less secular sense is apparent given the examples, or perhaps more properly the exemplars, of depravity and corruption littering our social culture.  It's significant that the most prominent exemplars are Justices of our Supreme Court.  One of them complains he's not being paid enough though the Court is in session for only nine months of a year, perhaps seeking to explain his propensity to accept handouts.  But perhaps the most prominent of the examples of our depravity and corruption are, I think, the amounts being spent in connection with out elections.  One can't help but wonder how such money should be spent.  Imagine if it was devoted to remedying poverty or repairing infrastructure, instead of assuring the election of compliant and complicit servants, and those who promise to benefit those donating funds.

Of course that won't happen.  

I won't dwell on whether were offered grace by God, though I think it clear that any God who is what we claim God should be would have tired by now of trying to encourage us to make our souls full of sanctifying grace as it's called, and that any God of the kind I would find worthy of reverence isn't one who would make our salvation dependent on whether we accept his favors rather than, for example, being virtuous in our lives.

But it seems clear enough to me that we live in a state of gracelessness here in our Great Republic (for now).

 

On A Carousel

Oswald Spengler, a kind of historian and philosopher of the early to mid-20th century, wrote a book called The Decline of the West.  Being German, he was unable to keep himself from using words like "being" and "becoming" as he wrote what he called, modestly, his complete explanation of world history--the only true one, others being counterfeit.   It strikes me that his initially interesting insight that human history was organic thereby degenerated into a kind of mysticism.  He opined that we pass through inevitable and successive phases of time he described as "culture" and "civilization."  The latter is an aspect of decline.  In antiquity, Greece was a "culture" and Rome a "civilization."  The modern West he thought had entered into the "civilization" phase which he predicted would be governed by "Caesarism" much as Rome was after the Republic, for the next couple of hundred years.

I'm leery of efforts at constructing grand, all-encompassing explanations of complicated phenomena, but think there is an element of truth in the claim that our history is in some sense cyclical, which is to say that we repeat ourselves, swinging pendulum-like from one extreme of social consciousness to another.  I'm inclined to attribute this to an inability to learn and to think, however.  This isn't to our credit, but it generates optimism of a sort--we can at least imagine that the current fad for autocracy and sameness, and the repression of contrasting views and lifestyles, will dissipate in time, as we ride the carousel of our history.

Thus, the prospect of an aging, scatter-brained and astonishingly self-centered snake-oil salesman becoming president once more need not terrify us, and it may be hoped that no permanent harm will be done to the nation.  The recent, relentlessly clownish, convention might merely be a tawdry circus rather than a horrifying glimpse of things to come.  

But assuming we survive the upcoming election as something resembling a Republic, what kind of a nation will we be?  We already are an oligarchy, or more properly a plutocracy.  Our legislators are for sale; the justices of our high court look for handouts and appear more and more like panhandlers wearing black robes.  What do we call a nation governed by gluttons and hoarders?  I don't think Aristotle came up with a term for a land of Trimalchios.  

We must emulate Montaigne, who wrote: "Not being able to govern events, I govern myself, and if they will not adapt to me, I adapt to them."  We must become nations in ourselves.  Not like the silly so-called "sovereign citizens" who live in a fantasy world much like a roleplay game, but rather as individuals mindful of their own interests and seeking peaceful co-existence with others but taking intelligent steps and making intelligent decisions for their own protection.

Age, Infirmity and the Presidency

This isn't the first time questions regarding the competence of a president have been raised, but it hasn't happened very often.  In 1919, Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke.  It was a serious one, and left him partially paralyzed, physically disabled in other respects as well, and it seems impacted his personality if not his intelligence.  His condition was kept secret, or as much so as it could be.  All communication with him passed through his wife and his doctor.  He died five years later at age 67.

I'm older now than he was when he died, so I'd rather not attribute his incapacity to his age.  In fact, it seems it was not, and may be more accurately thought of as the result of his general health, the pressure of the presidency and war, the failure of his hopes at Versailles and on his return to Washington, the disapproval of the treaty and the League of Nations.

The current president is older than Wilson was and older than I am.  I'm inclined to think he has suffered impairment due to age, though the extent of the impairment is unknown to me.  Unfortunately, it seems his impairment was kept hidden as well.  I didn't see the notorious debate, but from what I'm told his performance was shocking.  It's shocking as well that he was permitted to participate if those who know him well were aware of the problem.  If there is in fact such a problem, it would be irresponsible to ignore it.

It must be obvious that a president should be competent, if not proficient.  Neither of the present candidates appear to be, however.  Chances are better that the incumbent would be surrounded with competent people; competent people who served the former president during his administration fled from it after a time, and it isn't likely any will flock to a new one if he's elected.  He prefers willing, unquestioning followers in any case. 

The difficulty we face, though, is that while it is irresponsible to ignore significant cognitive decline, it may be even more irresponsible to improve the chances of someone who is irresponsibility incarnate; someone without scruples or principles.  If, then, a replacement is appropriate, that replacement should be one capable of winning the election.  The Democratic Party isn't teeming with stars.  Nor is the Republican Party, of course, but it doesn't want stars, having opted to submit to one person only.

Even so, under the circumstances I think that someone younger and aggressive would be preferable.  It pains me to say it, but old white men have had their day.  Age effects people differently, of course, but the presidency is taxing and our physical and mental fitness when it comes to the abilities required to lead a country by conduct rather than by the example of wisdom and virtue decline.

In our times, however, we must wonder whether the media, professional and social, has created this crisis of leadership.  The significance of the debate was hyped incessantly, nearly every moment leading up to the event.  Having treated it with such importance, the media has no choice but to tout its result, and make that of the greatest importance as well.  A good argument can be made that we are where we are due to the machinations of the media.

When Judges are Pharisees

A Pharisee is defined by Google's Dictionary source identified as Oxford Languages as "a member of an ancient Jewish sect distinguished by strict observance of the traditional and written law and commonly held to have pretensions to superior sanctity."  The words "a self-righteous person" and "hypocrite" are also used in the definition.

When thinking of a Pharisee as so defined, I can't help but think of certain judges who at least purport to strictly observe traditional and written law and are sanctimonious.  Certain Justices of the Supreme Court as well, I blush to admit.

Recently. two of the Justices, and the spouse of one of them, made some remarks at a gathering of some kind of something called "the Supreme Court Historical Society" which were surreptitiously recorded by someone "posing as a conservative."  I'm not sure what's involved in posing as a conservative, but in this case it seems making statements against abortion and supportive of (Christian, presumably) religion sufficed for that purpose.  

The statements sufficed, at least, to elicit remarks from the Justice to the effect that the nation should be restored to "godliness" and was doomed to be ruled by the left or the right, no compromise being possible.  The Justice's spouse was more voluble, bemoaning the controversy over flags flown at the Alito properties, which she seems to find incomprehensible if not maliciously intended, and expressing condemnation of the LGBT community and Pride month.  She expressed the hope of flying a flag featuring the Sacred Heart of Jesus, evidently in response to those in the LGBT community or those who support them.

I don't know why anyone would consider the emblem of the Sacred Heart an expression of condemnation of the LGBT community or of anyone, for that matter.  By my understanding, it's used to represent Christ's love and compassion.  It takes a peculiar kind of person to believe it represents intolerance and exclusion.

But Pharisees are peculiar.  At least, the Gospels indicate Christ thought them to be.  The picture at the top of this post shows the Pharisee and the tax collector, who figure in a parable from the Gospel of Luke.  In that parable, the Pharisee thanks God for making him a good man, unlike the tax collector and other mean and sinful folk.  The tax collector confesses his sins to God, and begs for his mercy.  The Pharisee is full of pride and is self-righteous, and is condemned by Christ as a result.

Like Pharisees, there are judges (and others) who believe they know what godliness is, and think themselves uniquely qualified to know what it is and impose it on others.  They ascribe their own limitations of intelligence and character to God.  Their vision is a narrow one, their sympathies are congested; there are no questions that are open to inquiry; all has been answered.  Oddly, such judges abhor judging.  What's to be judged?  It's merely a question of knowing what's already been decided (though not if it was decided anew--what's been decided was decided long ago and cannot be improved upon.

The other Justice was intelligent enough to resist the temptation to be pharisaical, and it may be hoped even that he isn't a Pharisee.  Pharisees, as we see from the parable, like to expound on their own godliness.  Pharisees like some judges and others, are exhibitionists of a sort.  They are shamelessly good.  They're so convinced of their righteousness they think it should be displayed, exposed to all.

Poor, Poor Pitiful US(A)

Demagogues have been the subjects of contempt since ancient times.  But as worthy as they are of disdain, and as able as they may be in persuading those who follow them, we shouldn't neglect to note that those that do are themselves pitiful creatures at best, and despicable at their worst.

Consider the reaction of the myrmidons and lackeys of the most prominent demagogue of our times to his recent conviction after a long jury trial.  His own reaction is predictably self-pitying, whiny and hyperbolic, so dully repetitive in its wild and baseless claims that it can't even qualify as outrageous, and is more rightly considered monotonous.  Their reaction, though is staggeringly craven, imbecilic, malicious and irresponsible.

Base self-interest may motivate the miserable politicians and media personalities who "assume the position" whenever he's near them and repeat his claims slavishly.  They're shameless in their pandering, even to the point of dressing as he does as we've seen--blue suits, white shirts, red ties (and of course brown noses).  They resemble the small duplicates Snow Miser and Heat Miser from The Year Without a Santa Claus. One would think that if they had any responsibility and intelligence they'd recognize their condemnation of the entire justice system can undermine our system of government, or even if they're entirely self-interested they'd at least know that in other circumstances such a view could endanger themselves.  Those whose worship of him isn't founded on self-interest and greed combined with cowardice, though, are more disturbing and alarming.

It's difficult to understand their fascination with someone who is so completely a fraud and lacking in charisma (unless a caricature of a used car salesman can be said to be charismatic).  How is it that they believe whatever he says, regardless of the fact that he never provides evidence in support of his claims?  How can they have become so invested in someone who is so self-absorbed, who considers only his own interests to the exclusion of others, as to call those who oppose him traitors?  Are they so gullible...so stupid...as to associate him with the good of the country?

It's been noted already by many that his followers resemble cult members.  I'm unfamiliar with the psychology of such people.  I would think they must be fearful, ignorant, needy, angry, irrational, easily led and dread the need to think, but beyond that I can't guess what manner of phobias or neuroses plague them.  But like the followers of such as the Reverend Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson and the fellow who was the leader of the Heaven's Gate cult (I can't remember his name) they present a danger to themselves and others.  

I don't know whether a cult in that sense exists in this case, but unthinking adherence to a sociopathic individual is perilous.  

We get the president we deserve, I think.  We get the government we deserve.  If we now think an autocracy of sorts is desirable, we're going to get it.  It would be a sad end to a remarkable nation created by remarkable men and women, though; a truly experimental effort to create a government that would secure most civil liberties and yet function in a manner as to dominate the world in many respects for many years.  Now it appears that most of us want to be dominated by someone else.  Not another nation, of course, but to be dominated by someone we're eager to worship.

Supremely Inappropriate

Not content with blaming his wife for one instance of dubious use of a flag associated with an insurrection at an Alito residence, the resourceful Justice has blamed her for another at a different Alito property.  That would be the second time he's thrown her under the bus in response to requests that he recuse himself from cases involving this incident, but not content with this misdirection he's done it yet again in his curious written response to those requests, solemnly (and unsurprisingly) declaring he need not--and indeed cannot--do so.

The notion of a judge having a duty not to recuse is one I find quite odd.  The duties a judge would have in response to a request would, I think, be to the parties involved in the case.  Justice Alito seems to think he has a duty apart from them--a duty to decide, although he's accused of bias or at least he appearance of it; indeed, perhaps because he has been so accused, and has decided himself (as he's allowed to do under the Supreme Court's unenforceable "code of ethics") that he cannot be accused of bias and is (and presumably--hopefully?-will be) impartial.

The truisms he employs in explaining he won't recuse himself are so off point it's difficult to believe he resorts to them.  Nobody has claimed his wife isn't a person, or an individual.  No one doubts she has her own opinions.  The fact she has flown other flags is neither relevant nor interesting.  The concept of joint ownership of property is well known.  No one thinks she has no right to fly a flag.  No one thinks she has no First Amendment rights.  No one doubts she was called bad things by others, nor is it maintained that neighbors did not exercise their own right to place signage on their property she found objectionable.

We may take Alito at his word that he wasn't involved in raising/flying the flags.

None of this is pertinent, and one would like to think that a Justice of the Supreme Court has the wits needed to know that's the case.  None of this is pertinent because the issue is whether, even under the toothless code which "applies," his impartiality may reasonably questioned.  Impartiality may reasonably be questioned regardless of whether it is or can be established.

Everyday people governed by codes of ethics must grapple with the question whether what they do creates the appearance of impropriety.  There's nothing unusual about this.  In most cases, honorable people feel, rightly, that when called upon to decide or participate in a decision involving their spouses professed beliefs and claims and whether they are valid or invalid, an appearance of impropriety exists.  This is because a spousal relationship is normally considered an unusually close one, in which spouses profoundly influence one another and share common interests and concerns.

Perhaps Justice Alito and his wife don't have such a relationship.  Perhaps he disdains her views, or pays no attention to what she thinks or does.  Even if that was the case, though, it would be reasonable for someone to think that they're a normal married couple, that they respect one another and know what each other do, at least in most cases.  Certainly, one would think, when it comes to flying flags over the home in which they live.

Assuming, then, what most would assume in the case of a marriage, i.e. that each partner will love, honor and respect their spouse, it's not at all unreasonable to expect that what one spouse publically declaims on matters in which the other is involved in deciding will influence the making of the decision, or will at least lead reasonable people to believe it will do so.  Pedantic recitation of each partner's individuality and legal rights isn't persuasive in such circumstances.  In fact, it seems disingenuous, and even dishonorable.

Supreme Court Justices seem to be doing a kind of ethical limbo dance.  How low can they go?

Under the Upside Down Flag (Alito Incognito)

It's said that displaying the picture of a Supreme Court Justice upside down is a sign of profound distress due to an emergency threatening the nation.  It may also be used as a symbol of protest.  This picture of Justice Alito was posted by here by someone.  I don't say it was me, but I take advantage of it to comment on the flying of the Stars and Stripes, Old Glory, The Grand Old Flag of our Glorious Republic, The Flag Of Our Fathers, upside down at his house  in January, 2021, contemporaneous with the insurrection effort of January 6 of that year and the silly "Stop the Steal" movement related to the 2020 election.

Justice Alito when confronted with proof that this took place promptly hurled his wife under the bus, and claimed that she had done it without his knowledge or consent.  He was, it seems, unaware of events taking place at his home and of the conduct of his wife, who as far as I know has neither confirmed nor denied his gallant claim.  Alito claims she treated our flag in such a fashion because of signs on display in the yards of certain of his neighbors, which we're to believe were so offensive as to merit this call for distress, or which otherwise required that she brandish her support for the claim the 2020 election was stolen in this fashion.

It's not a persuasive claim or explanation, I think.  The Justice has displayed an ignorance of women in general in the past, but it doesn't follow from this that he was, or is, ignorant of the thoughts and actions of his wife specifically.  Also, just why anyone would think flying the flag upside down is an appropriate response to nasty neighbors is unclear.  I can't help but wonder if this was Alito acting incognito; i.e. with his identity rather thinly concealed by the person of his wife.

If hanging the flag upside down was conduct in support of the "Stop the Steal" farce or was intended to express belief that the election had been stolen, it's remarkable that the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice would act in this fashion given that even at the time, as I recall, the claims made in that respect had been laughed out of courts throughout the nation.  One would think a belief in judicial impartiality and reserve would cause a reasonable person to question the basis for the assertions being made in court which various judges dismissed, and it may be expected that even the wife of a Supreme Court Justice would hold such a belief, if not the Justice himself.  But perhaps this isn't to be expected of either the Justice's wife or the Justice himself in this case.

We see at the Supreme Court as we see elsewhere in our politics and society a sense of disdain for lives different from ours and thoughts which are contrary to our own.  We also see self-righteousness of an extreme kind.  In politics and in an increasingly political judicial system, the expression of this self-righteousness is pharisaical.  

We know the Supreme Court Justices have recently refused to adopt a code of ethics similar to that which applies to other federal judges.  It seems they're serenely confidant that no such code need exist (it's to be hoped they don't think that ethics themselves are unneeded at the Supreme Court, but only in lesser courts).  We know also that another Justice and his wife have blithely accepted costly gifts from very rich friends and admirers, for the most part wealthy conservatives, and see nothing objectionable about this mooching on their part.  This kind of self-regard can be dangerous, as Supreme Court Justices, who have no term of office and whose decisions cannot be appealed, can come to think of themselves as truly supreme.

We can expect that neither Justice Thomas (whose wife supported claims of a fraudulent election) or Justice Alito will recuse themselves from cases involving the January 6th insurrection under the circumstances, of course.  

It's unsurprising that the reputation of the Supreme Court is diminishing.  Lawyers know judges better than most, and probably are no more impressed by the knowledge or characters of the current Justices than they are of most other judges of appellate courts.  They know there's nothing particularly laudable or admirable about them and their significance is simply in the power they wield.  But it strikes me that others are coming to know this as well.  Unfortunately, certain of the Justices seem bent on making certain that respect for the Court continues to dwindle.

The Storm We Must Endure

"Things floating like the first hundred flakes of snow, out of a storm we must endure all night..."

Yes, there's a storm coming.  A siege of sorts, perhaps.  "A horror of thoughts that are suddenly real."  In either case, something we must endure.

I quote from Wallace Stevens' poem titled, dourly (or should I say wryly?), Man Carrying Thing.  Dour to me, I think, if not to Stevens.  Stevens can evoke a grim sort of Stoicism in me sometimes, a serene kind other times.  I hope for serenity though I think the coming storm will be dour.  Thoughts, our own and those of others, horrible in themselves suddenly become real and imminent.

The signs are hard to miss.  There are no notable people on our national stage, though there are players aplenty.  Those who preen on it are largely rogues or their pusillanimous followers, or merely venal and self-involved as may be expected in what has become a plutocracy.  

A plutocracy has no established social or political agenda beyond what favors wealth and the interests of the wealthy, to the extent those interests extend beyond wealth.  It's a very simple system of government in some respects, as a result.  It's devoted primarily to the protection of wealth already acquired, and the acquisition of additional wealth by those already wealthy.  Secondarily, it may be devoted to the pursuit of whatever ideology is preferred by the plutocrats, if they or a majority of them agree on one, but it may be assumed that ultimately that ideology will involve the accumulation of money, which is power.

In a nation dominated by the acquisition and use of money, the wealthy will be few, but because they have money they're able to manipulate those without it.  Those without it will dream of it and admire and emulate those who have it.   Ultimately, those manipulated won't particularly care what's told to them by the wealthy, their wealth rendering them as idols to idolaters.  They'll do as told in the hope that they, too, may be wealthy sometime.  Alternatively, they may believe that the wealthy must know what they're saying and what should be done, because they're wealthy.

Whether our Glorious Union is a true plutocracy or some form of oligarchy is uncertain.  It certainly isn't a democracy, representative or otherwise, given the influence of money which has been enshrined even in the law.  But it's manipulation and the urge to be manipulated which I think will ignite the coming storm.  Our legislature is corrupt or has become a kind of sanctuary for fools, our executive will be headed by an incompetent but possibly well-meaning dotard or a sociopath and con man, our Supreme Court is dominated by moochers and reactionaries.  The majority of our people are intolerant and unthinking, and tribal in their sensibilities.  Short term prospects aren't good.

Some say Stoicism is a philosophy of he status quo, but I wonder if it is, instead, a philosophy or way of life which provides comfort and strength when the status quo is intolerable.  More and more things are beyond our control and will disturb us if we don't recognize that's the case and instead do the best we can with what is in our control--our thoughts, our feelings, our conduct.  We need not do what others do, we need not think as others think, and so we may if we try hard endure the storm which rages around us and need not be a part of it.  

Pierre Hadot in his book about Marcus Aurelius referred to an Inner Citadel.  Imagine a Roman Emperor who needed to seek such refuge.  If he did, and managed to wage war and rule an empire while doing so, what a fortress it could be for others.

Politics and Zugzwang

As I've noted in the past, zugzwang in chess refers to a position in which the player obligated to make a move cannot do so without being placed at a disadvantage, which may be serious or even "fatal."  An example of zugzwang appears above.

I've also opined in the past that a particular presidential election was similar to zugzwang in chess, as any vote--at least for a candidate likely to win--placed the voter at a disadvantage.  Are we in a similar situation as to the presidential election coming in November?  Probably, though I think the disadvantages which will result if one of the candidates is elected will far exceed those which will result from the election of the other.  But I begin to wonder whether zugzwang has come to characterize or will characterize most if not all elections in our Glorious Union.  In other words, I begin to wonder whether any choice to be made in any election will necessarily be disadvantageous.

That's a rather broad and gloomy statement, I know.  But our politics and politicians have become so debased I fear it is or will be true.

I think we have to acknowledge that there is less and less about our politics which makes worthy people interested in participating in it.  In fact, it has become so divisive, rancorous and corrupt that anyone with morals or intelligence will want to avoid any involvement in what is becoming to seem a cesspool.  We see even veteran members of Congress, who should be hardened souls, eager to escape the circus it's become.

The proceedings in Congress are already largely futile on important issues, as there is little urge to compromise or, it seems, even to govern if that means reasonably accommodating conflicting interests and positions, which is to be expected in any functioning democracy or republic.  Those who've noticed the anti-democratic leanings of many politicians on the right and fear their prominence may be prescient.  Those who think they know and serve the will of God, or what is truly good and right, have no patience with doubt or questions and won't compromise.  The simple-mindedness which underlies such intolerance is spreading.  People want to be told what to do.  Most of all, I believe, people don't want to think unless they must do so--it's better if others do the thinking for them.

As Congress fails to govern, people will look for other ways to "get things done."  They'll find someone who will at least appear to "make the trains run on time."

If the worthy among us refuse to participate actively in the politics of our Great Republic, the unworthy will quickly take their place.  The venal, the fanatic, the ignorant, the stupid will run for office or determine who will or will not be candidates for them, or obtain them.  Elections and the governmental bodies which those elected will grace with their presence will become freak shows of sorts.  The performers in the shows will be the scraps and leavings of our population, thralls to the rich or corporations, or grim and stunted followers of intolerant ideologies or political "leaders."

It's an old story.  We've seen it all before.  Though we know the past, we may still be doomed to repeat it, as we don't change or refuse to do so.

Dicta and Dictatorship

It seems to me that the majority of the current Justices of our Supreme Court are inclined to transcend, to put it kindly, the cases before them.  That is to say, they aren't afraid to do more than is required of them from the standpoint of the law, strictly speaking, but rather tend in addition to do and say what they nonetheless deem it appropriate for them to do and say.  This kind of conduct is something former, liberal, Justices were accused of by conservative commentators.  

Consider the recent decision regarding the action of the Colorado Supreme Court in disqualifying a candidate for the presidency from appearing on the ballot in that State under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  That Section states that those who engage in an insurrection contrary to the oaths of office they took to the Federal and State constitutions are disqualified from running from such an office in the future.  SCOTUS struck the Colorado decision down.  All nine of the Justices thought it appropriate to do so, but some of them thought that the opinion could do so by simply holding that the States cannot enforce Section 3 except with respect to disqualification from State offices.  The opinion does much more than that.  It contains language indicating that Section 3 can be enforced only if Congress passes legislation providing for its enforcement.  In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Congress passed legislation providing for the disqualification of non-legislative office holders and members of Congress.  No legislation has been passed regarding disqualification when it comes to the office of president, however.  The majority of the Justices apparently think such legislation is needed before such disqualification may be enforced.

Four of the Justices thought this additional language regarding the need for legislation to enforce Section 3 is the result of the court indulging in rendering an opinion, or commenting, on matters not necessary to the decision of the court.

In the wide, wonderful world of the law in our Great Republic, a distinction is made between language in caselaw which constitutes the holding of a court, and what is called dicta.  Generally speaking,  dicta is language in an opinion  which isn't necessary to resolve the case before the court.  It may be a comment, an observation, a suggestion, or mere declamation.   Because it isn't necessary to the holding of the court, and thus the resolution of the case, dicta need not be followed by other courts.  It doesn't create precedent.  It's merely persuasive, if anything.  What is precedent is the holding itself, and the reasoning needed to arrive at it.  To give that reasoning its lovely Latin name, the ratio decidendi.

It's important to determine whether statements in the opinion that Congressional legislation is required before there can be disqualification from the office of president is dicta or binding precedent.  Five of the Justices claim, in responses to the concurring opinions, that the statements are part of the reasoning required to strike down the action of the Colorado Supreme Court.  This doesn't mean it isn't dicta, however.

If it isn't dicta, then it appears that it's not yet possible for someone to be disqualified from the presidency.   There must be Congressional legislation before that can be done.  In the interim, Section 3 doesn't apply.  

It would seem the language of Section 3 is sufficiently clear that additional legislation, saying essentially the same thing, isn't needed for it to apply.   In fact, in taking the position that more legislation in effect parroting Section 3 is necessary the five Justices render Section 3 superfluous, contrary to rules of construction of statutory law.

More significant, though, is the fact that the Congressional legislation supposedly required may never be adopted.  So, nobody running for president may ever be disqualified from doing so by Section 3.  A candidate for president may engage in insurrection and not be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment, for now.

By requiring further legislation specific to the office of president, SCOTUS runs the risk of making the application of Section 3 to the presidency a political decision.  In the decadent state of our government, it's easy enough to envision members of Congress fearful of adopting such legislation because it may be used against their party's presidential candidates.

 In the decadent state of the law, a candidate for president, or one who wins the presidency, isn't disqualified by engaging in insurrection despite the clear language of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In the decadent state of our society, a candidate's supporters may engage in insurrection and it won't prevent the candidate from being president, even if the candidate encouraged it.