James M. Redwine

presidential election

Existential Threats

by Leave a Comment

An existential risk, in general, is one that could cause the collapse of human civilization, such as nuclear war. An existential risk to democracy is one that could bring about the collapse of individual liberty, such as fascism. This is the theme of The New Republic magazine cover that morphs Donald Trump’s face into Hitler’s. It is, also, the theme of numerous politicians and cable news commentators who have called Trump an existential threat to our American democracy and called for him to be stopped at all costs. Twenty-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks gave up his own life to try.

In like manner, many politicians and cable news commentators have asserted Joe Biden is corrupt in his personal life and, as president, he has “weaponized” his Justice Department against his political opponents and must be ousted from office. He has been demonized as “Crooked Joe” and vilified as a threat to our democracy due to his advancing age. Although many of us also feel Father Time creeping around.

Some supporters of Biden and some supporters of Trump are indistinguishable in their vociferously clanging brass, or as Ecclesiastes, Ch. 9, v. 17 might say their “… shouting of ruler(s) among fools.” What we need instead are, “The words of the wise heard in quiet ….”

But America may have been blessed with the curse of a near miss on July 13, 2024 when former President Trump somehow survived an assassination attempt and gave both Trump and Biden and their supporters one of life’s greatest and rarest gifts, another chance. And America, itself, would be the beneficiary if we do not squander it.

Biden and Trump are neither one dogs but they might want to reflect on some more wisdom from Ecclesiastes, “But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion,” Ch. 9, v. 4. In other words, even though both men are old they still have the opportunity to go out like lions if they choose wise leadership over foolish rhetoric and actions. Instead of speaking and acting like petulant children they should follow First Corinthians, Ch. 13, v. 11, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” And all it took was one near miss for both of them to have the chance to finally grow up.

Former President Trump is the one who was shot and survived, but Biden is intrinsically entwined by circumstances with Trump’s fate and fortune. Much like many paired adversaries, the fate of one is the fate of both. And Biden is being “shot at” by his own Democrat Party that is pressuring him to simply give up “for the good of the country.” Of course, if instead of standing up and fighting Biden steps aside, whoever replaces him will come from the ranks of those who have also ascribed to the assertions that Trump is an existential threat. Regardless, for now both Biden and Trump are the candidates and just as all of us, they have had that ever present gnawing thought in the middle of the night, “Why didn’t I do or say that differently? Oh, how I wish I had the chance to change what I said or did.” Well, Trump and Biden do now have that chance. They both, even as elderly public servants, have been given the golden gift of an unexpected chance to re-make their personal and public personas. They could take their guidance from that great philosopher, William Shakespeare, whose Prince Hal put off juvenile behavior and clothed himself in royal responsibility. As King Henry, the onetime feckless rogue made himself into a great leader of England upon his father’s death and astonished his people:

“… he (Prince Hal) may be more wondered at by breaking through the foul and ugly mists of vapors that did seem to strangle him.
”Henry IV, Part I, scene II.

Of course, one person will win in November, but whoever the candidates may be they both can rise above the current ad hominem viciousness and provide our country with hope, guidance, wisdom and leadership. Most of us will not get a reprieve from life for our sins and bad judgments. But occasionally life does shoot-at-someone-and miss. Say a cancer diagnosis that turns out to take years instead of days or an unexpected heart attack that we survive. How we respond determines how we expend the rest of our lives and how our family and friends evaluate whether we are honorable in our second chance behavior.

When it comes to Donald and Joe, they now, even at or near 80, have the totally unexpected chance to modify their behavior, and in doing so, help save their country. Such a rare treasure should not be squandered on the shoals of egotistical ambition. Perhaps when each of them awakes in the middle of the night now they will say to themselves, “Thank you for this once in a life-time totally unexpected opportunity.” Then each might become the leader even their opponent did not expect.

Democracy At Risk

by Leave a Comment

Lake James, Indiana. Photo by Peg Redwine

Donald Trump did not find fault with his election victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 even though many Americans were astonished. However, four years later President Trump and many others questioned President Joe Biden’s victory. Some Trump supporters even marched and more on January 06, 2021 in protest as still sitting President Trump verbally urged them on.

Former President Trump is now seeking the presidency again, but some are protesting his right to do so. These never Trumpers are asserting that Trump is now prohibited from running by Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that provides:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

As many of us learned in high school, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were ratified by Congress soon after the Civil War. Generally, the 13th prohibited slavery, the 14th provided for Due Process for Blacks, including citizenship, while the 15th gave Black men the right to vote.

I do not know about you, Gentle Reader, but I had never given a moment’s thought to Section 3 until after January 06, 2021 and until former President Trump announced his intention to run again. I do recall Alabama Governor George Wallace who defied the United States Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 in Brown vs The Topeka, Kansas Board of Education that ordered an end to school segregation. In Wallace’s inauguration address on January 14, 1963 he declared, “…segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”. Yet, Wallace was allowed to run for the presidency only five years later in 1968 without anyone raising the 14th Amendment. America’s voters made their free democratic choice and rejected Wallace’s racist position.

The first time I heard mention of Section 3 being used to keep Trump off the ballot I remember my bemusement. Then, as the tiny tinkling of the anti-Trump candidacy tocsin became a loud tolling of ballot disqualification, my bemusement became concern.

Some who advance the preemption of Trump’s second term warn that our democracy would be in danger if he is reelected. These self-anointed saviors assert that to preserve our democracy we must assure the MAGA fanatics cannot steal our self-government. And the best way to do this is to disenfranchise them by eliminating their candidate from the ballot. Well, you see the oxymoron of saving democracy by denying it to those they dislike. Yet, that is the petard the Section 3 crowd is raising. Of course, they know that just as with Bush vs. Gore 2000, the matter will end up in the tender mercies of the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court. How did that work out for our democracy? Can you say Iraq War?

Politics is not Bean Bag. If you have never run for political office and lost, you may not appreciate the visceral impact it has. Most people have played on or supported some sports team and have experienced the disbelief and angst from some loss they attribute to a bad call by an umpire or referee. Well, I assure you, Gentle Reader, a loss of an election is a much more gut-wrenching experience.

As one of my brothers told me after he lost his only foray into local politics, “I cannot understand how I lost, everyone I talked to told me they voted for me”. No matter how graciously a losing candidate handles a loss, many of them wonder if, in fact, they won and somehow the outcome should have been otherwise. Ergo, Donald Trump was a part of that, “I can’t believe it!”, tradition. Was he wrong? Was he a poor sport? Was he a jerk? Yes, yes and yes. Did he take up arms against the United States? No.

Should we attempt to save our democracy by keeping him off the ballot? No! Let the voters decide. Part of democracy means allowing people to make poor choices or, at least, choices we dislike. However, democracy means making sure we all have the right to do so.

A Legal Revolution

by Leave a Comment


Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) was a Frenchman who studied American society during a nine-month tour in 1831 when the United States were still simmering with vitriolic political animus from the 1824 and 1828 elections between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Adams was elected by the House of Representatives in 1824 and Jackson won via the Electoral College in 1828. After neither election did the United States fall into chaos, even though Jackson won both the popular vote and a plurality, but not a majority, of the Electoral College vote yet Adams grabbed the presidency in 1824.

Four men ran for president in 1824, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay and William Crawford. Because the Electoral College vote was split in such a way that none of the four received a majority, as required to be elected President, under the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution a “contingent” election was held in the House of Representatives. Each state’s delegation was given one vote and Adams was elected. Jackson and his supporters alleged that Adams and Clay had entered into a “Corrupt Bargain” to shift Clay’s votes to Adams. Regardless, Adams was elected by the House and the country moved on until 1828 when Jackson ran against Adams again.

In his treatise on American democracy de Tocqueville defined America’s presidential election as “a revolution at law” and described it as follows:

“Every four years, long before the appointed (presidential election) day arrives, the election becomes the greatest, and one might say the only, affair occupying men’s minds…. As the election draws near intrigues grow more active and agitation is more lively and widespread. The citizens divide up into several camps.… The whole nation gets into a feverish state.”

De Tocqueville’s ultimate verdict on America’s democracy was encapsulated in his general verdict on how political controversies were ultimately resolved. His observation was that:

“In America there is hardly a political question which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.”

De Tocqueville’s opinion was that the American manner of resolving political issues without bloodshed worked because, unlike European monarchies, the United States citizens respected the law and they did so because they had the right to both create it and change it. Since we get to choose our legislators who write our election laws and because we can change the laws by changing whom we elect if we are unhappy, we accept the laws as written including who is ultimately declared the winner of a current election.

The laws we have the right to create and the right to change include filing for an elected office, running for that office, who counts the votes, how they are counted, as well as how and when someone can legally contest an election. That legal procedure applies to all facets of an election cycle. Each state’s legislature has the authority to establish its own procedures in this regard as long as they do not violate federal law.

As an Indiana Circuit Court Judge I was involved in a recount of a congressional race, a county clerk general election, a county council general election, a town council election and a county council primary election. The Indiana legislature had enacted and published a clear statutory procedure for each type of election contest, including what role each public official should play in any recount. The statutes demanded total openness and media access to ensure the public could have confidence that if all involved followed the law a clear winner would be fairly determined. There were time limits, controls and transparency. After a recount result was certified in each contest life moved on and the eventual losers and their supporters accepted the results because they had had their “day in court”; that is, democratically enacted law was followed not the arbitrary or partisan activity of individuals.

De Tocqueville compared America’s hotly contested democratic elections to a surging river that strains at its banks with raging waters then calms down and carries on peacefully once the results have been properly certified. From my own experience with several elections and after the recounts of some of them, I agree with de Tocqueville’s analogy.

That is not to say I am for or against any type of recount for any office. I absolutely have no position on whether any candidate for any office should concede or contest anything. My position is simply that as long as the law is properly followed our democracy can handle either circumstance.