"A Republic... if you can keep it."

Recently, Hillary Clinton has been complaining - once again - about losing the 2016 election.  She has been making various claims that her candidacy was sabotaged, or that people didn't pay attention to the evils of her primary opponent, or that she won the "popular vote" and would be President if it wasn't for that nasty Electoral College.

Sorry, Ms. Clinton, but none of those assumptions hold true - for one simple reason:

The United States is not a Democracy.  It is a Republic.

There are various memes about a Democracy being "two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner" or "the majority voting on what to take away from the minority".  Aside for the ironic nature of those memes, the basic truth is that a Democracy can enable a majority to act in a tyrannical manner against the minority.  A Republic can't.

The Founders were wise enough to know that a pure Democracy would be a failure if implemented in an environment where each of the original 13 Colonies had its own customs, economies, and products.  They knew that forcing some of the Colonies to submit to the demands of other Colonies was a recipe for an inter-Colonial war (which actually happened in the mid-1800s, but that discussion is for another time).

Instead, The Founders designed a "federalism" system of government (remember, we are a "federation of States").  Each State would provide its own State-level governing structure.  The citizens of each State would elect Representatives to their State-level government.  The citizens of each State would also elect Representatives to the central Federal government as well.

The intention was to allow each State to implement laws that it felt were good for its citizens, and that the Federal Representatives would implement laws that all of the States could agree on.  The laws of each State would only affect the citizens of each State, but the laws passed by the Federal government would have supremacy over the actions of every State.

Since this is a Republic, how could a Federal chief executive be elected in such a way that the majority could not completely overwhelm the minority, and where the minority could defeat a tyrannical majority?

The Electoral College was the solution.  Here, "electors" from each state, based on the number of Representatives and Senators to that state, would elect the President.  In this form, a state with a huge population would be no more powerful than many smaller states bound together.

This idea works because the President is the chief law enforcement officer of Federal laws- but has no power over State laws.  He is also empowered to enact or veto Federal bills - a "check" on the power of the Legislature.

The President is not empowered to change State law, nor is he empowered to change Federal law.  Hence, the electors from each State must cooperate to determine who "runs" the Federal government.  The Founders solved that problem by using the same rules as the rest of government: the members of the Electoral College, each representing their own State, elect their own Representative - the "President of the United States".

It's actually a very clever system and one where no individual, group of individuals, or outside agency - such as Russia - can shift an election one way or the other.

We are a Republic, and the Electoral College enforced the same rules of the Republic

Now, Ms. Clinton wishes to eliminate the intent of the Founders by changing the most important aspect of the Federal government from a Republic to a Democracy.

This is the lip of the slippery slope.  If we begin to change the Constitution - the "rules" for the United States - we could destroy the United States.

Ms. Clinton is not happy that she lost the election.  I suppose that's only natural.  But changing the Constitution because you aren't happy that you lost an election?

Perhaps, Ms. Clinton, you were unable to convince citizens of several states to vote for you instead of your opponent.  Perhaps you counted too much on States that supported your candidacy and not enough on states that were "unsure".  Perhaps you depended too much on "status quo" politics when your opposing candidate played according to different - but entirely legal - rules.

In any event, you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating the tearing down the current form of government because you depended too much on the "popular vote" and not enough on the Electoral College.

One last thing: if there was "interference" in the 2016 election, that interference would have had to be so extensive and so widespread that it would be obvious to a blind person.  It wouldn't be hidden from view and only seen through cracks and crevices by only those who make improbable connections between unrelated events.

You legitimately lost the election because there were sufficient States, and thus Electoral College members, who declined to support you.  And as I have explained, it had nothing to do with the "popular vote".

18 Years Later

My second cousin worked in the Woolworth building, a block north and a block east of Two World Trade Center - which is across the street from where one of the towers stood (the "north" tower). He was on the subway on his way to work when the train suddenly stopped and an announcement was made that there was an explosion at the World Trade center. It was election day and he had just voted in the primary, otherwise he would have been in his building - which suffered some damage when the towers fell.

My daughter was mad at me the previous week: "You're so unfair!" I hadn't allowed her to take a bus to NYC to meet with some of the faculty members of Boston's School of the Museum of Fine Arts. They were scheduled to have a "meet and greet" brunch on September 11, 2001 ...

... in the Top of the World restaurant at the World Trade Center.

She's not mad at me any more.

For me, 9/11/2001 is a day with mixed emotions. Anger and sadness that so many were killed or hurt, and thankfulness that my family remained safe.

Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a target.  A previous attempt to bring them down 10 years earlier using a car bomb wasn't successful, although it did destroy much of one of the underground parking lots.

Those who were paying attention knew that the Twin Towers were a symbol of America's financial and economic strength, and that there were those in the world who hated us and them for what they represented.

Clinton treated multiple terrorist attacks as criminal acts, not as terrorist attacks.  Because of this, investigations were relegated to the local authorities instead of federal agencies.  Without calling these multiple attacks "terrorism", no agency or authority was tasked with "connecting the dots".

Post-9/11 recriminations ran rife with attacks against President Bush for not preventing the attack, even though the information about "airplanes being used as weapons to attack American targets" was so nonspecific that it was useless.  Questions were asked why President Clinton did not "take out Bin Laden" previously.  Accusations flew back and forth about emergency services being unable to communicate effectively.  Some in Congress blamed the Bush administration for "not connecting the dots" when the previous Clinton administration had not demonstrated the need to do so - and hadn't "connected the dots" either.

Some even ridiculed President Bush for not angrily racing out of a classroom during the attack.  He  had been reading a book to kindergarten children.Would frightening the children have solved a thing? The attack had already taken place, every plane in flight was ordered to land at the closest airport after the report of Flight 93 being hijacked, and Vice President Cheney was ready to give orders to Air Force fighters to shoot down any plane refusing to land.

18 years have passed.

In my opinion, we haven't learned a thing.  The proof is our failure to take actions to protect our nation since 9/11 and the proof that America is no longer protected by "ocean borders on either side".

We haven't strengthened our power transmission systems against EMP or other attack.

We haven't fully secured our southern and northern borders to prevent incursions (look at the statistics - some illegal entrants are from the Middle East).

We haven't significantly improved our methods to inspect goods received by container vessels at our multiple ports (marginal improvements, yes - but too many items still make it through the border).

We haven't reassessed our foreign policy to determine where the US military should be involved and where the US shouldn't even get involved.

These are only a few of the "open holes" in our nation's security.  Forums already exist where the question of national security are being legitimately discussed and where possible answers are being proposed.

For decades, we have paid attention to issues that some believe are necessary to demonstrate "who we are".  In many of the "who we are" arguments, some have argued against a strong military capable of defending America because "who we are" should not include using the military. Ever. At. All.  Even when necessary.  Some have even argued that we shouldn't defend America because this nation doesn't deserve to exist.

Maybe Washington is keeping itself occupied with nonsense issues because the big issues - the ones that need to be solved to actually protect America - are SO big and SO hard to solve that both sides are afraid to take the first move... and be accused by the other side of being "provocative".

9/11 both tore this nation apart and brought it together.  We were one nation for a short time - but only for a short time.  And then politicians on both sides of the aisle decided that "playing games" was more important than defending the nation.

Are we back where we were on 9/10/2001?