Volume 6, Issue 51
There is no such thing as perfection in an individual. We are all flawed as homo sapiens. Whether you believe as the Christians that we were born into sin through the doctrine of “original sin,” or as atheists believe we evolved from a “survival of the fittest” system that leaves remnant self-interest in our DNA, perfection is impossible for a human being to achieve.
Now the question becomes, can we expect perfect laws?
The Constitution of the United States, based upon the concept of unalienable rights, comes as close as any document penned in human history, as a perfect reflection in law of righteous ideas and concepts. Yet, the Supreme Court of the United States is a necessary branch of government to act as supreme arbiter between individuals, and at times their government, in the determination of the application of laws in accordance or conflict with human behavior. In other words, no person is perfect all the time. There can be a difference of opinion on what is, in fact, proper conduct. But the Constitution is the foundation for which all government or individual action is deemed legal.
What is important is to ascertain the net value of perfection measured in the affairs of man, government, and society.
What is this net value? Donald Trump is vilified by many in simple reaction to his tweeting demeanor. His tweets are often personal, critical, and disparaging. He may be the first President to tell the public on a daily basis what he really thinks. To some, this is a character flaw. And further, the President’s harshest critics demand that he be impeached and removed from office because of his lack of proper comportment as measured by their moral standards.
The measure of an individual’s contribution to society and net value, through his or her sphere of influence, is the progress made toward the advancement of principles in which they believe. In other words, through our flawed individual, imperfect characters, do we add more value than we destruct in our everyday total body of work?
In Donald Trump’s case, the economy is growing at a quarterly rate of 3.7%. Unemployment is at its lowest level since World War II. Income levels are rising for middle-class workers. These economic benefits are being realized across the board in American society. Do some desire economic growth without such vitriolic discourse? Yes. And, in a perfect world, it might be possible. The exercise is to weigh the progress against the lack of personal perfection.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller continues his investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump Presidential Campaign and Administration. By all accounts, delivered by fact or rumor, the investigation has found no evidence of criminal collusion. It is important to remember that a crime must be committed for an indictment to be delivered. It is not a crime to meet with foreign officials or, as in this case, Russian emissaries.
Like the Kenneth Starr Special Counsel operation, the initial scope and charge of the investigation was to get to the bottom of Bill Clinton administration’s involvement in the Whitewater Development Corporation scandal. The issue then was corruption. The smoke was so heavy, one needed an oxygen mask to approach the subject. In the end, no indictments were handed down on Whitewater. The President was charged with perjury in answers to questions made under oath on the Monica Lewinsky sexual affair. He was impeached by Congress and acquitted by the Senate. The point is that Monica Lewinsky had nothing to do with Whitewater. Like Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, President Trump may be found guilty of something totally unrelated to Russian collusion.
Was Bill Clinton a good or bad President? As time wanders on, the answer to that question is more what did he achieve in office for the good of the republic, and less how perfect was his character.
Special Counsel Mueller may be trying to apply a standard of perfection in application to a law that is less relevant to the measure of value of an individual. This seems to be the nature of special counsel investigations.
The only person in our history where the perfection of a man’s character appeared to embody the spirit of the perfection of law was George Washington. We, of course, hold his place in history to first among men. He was our first President, and therefore had no precedent with which to be compared. He was, in fact, his own standard. And yet his character has survived 242 years of American history as the pinnacle for which to strive. Why? First and foremost, he was humble. Second, he sought a higher calling. Third, he believed in the respect, dignity and relationship of all individuals he encountered. He respected and achieved mutual cooperation with the Native Americans. He held in highest regard unalienable rights before they were immortalized as a foundational concept in the Constitution.
How ironic that a man could achieve such a realm of respect for perfection in character in the absence of a perfect law.
The Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1789, eight years after the end of the Revolutionary War. George Washington was so extraordinary in his moral tenets that enough others were either unable or unwilling to emulate him to constitute the core of society. Therefore, a Constitution was required to set the standard and measure of the actions of government and individuals in reference to net moral value. The original document has been amended twenty-seven times. It is appropriate to amend the Constitution in an ongoing effort to achieve perfection in law, knowing that we ourselves are imperfect.
The question is not whether Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Robert Mueller are ordained in their individual efforts as imperfect beings to seek a perfect outcome. They are not. We are all ordained individually to pursue moral and righteous objectives pursuant to our faith and our beliefs.
We are all endowed by our Creator to advance unalienable rights by supporting, when worthy, imperfect people in an imperfect world.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?