Why UW-Madison Students Fight For Justice, Uphill Struggles?

While the UW-Madison Library Mall was the scene of a much-discussed protest concerning the plight of Palestinians in Gaza, I was reading more about Charles Sumner, the famed senator who was a determined and purposeful man who would not and could not countenance slavery. While university protesters were called anarchists and terrorists the Massachusetts politician was labeled by Alabama Senator Clemont Clay on the Senate floor a “sneaking, sinuous, snake-like poltroon” and “a filthy reptile”. Sumner’s words from the 1840s, which he would not be shy about publicly stating or standing by, would be the bedrock for a major Supreme Court race in the 20^th century. Who can say how the resolve and commitment of the UW protestors this spring may sail on the wind of history? Or where it may land?

If there is one story from our national journey that proves to be a model as to why the fight for “a more perfect union” should never be considered worthless or a waste of time, it is the one that played out in 1849 and featured Sumner. He stands up against all odds and will make the first case against school segregation.

Five-year-old Sarah Roberts lived in Boston and walked past several white schools to attend her inferior all-Black school. The obvious problem is taken up by Boston’s first Black lawyer, Robert Moris, who asks that Sumner join him as co-counsel.  Sumner accepts the duties but refuses to be paid for his efforts. It is when Sumner argues the case before the judge. that for the first time in an American courtroom. the term “equality before the law” will be used as a legal argument.

He stated that separate schools for Blacks and whites were inconsistent with equality. In 1850, the Massachusetts Supreme Court chief justice issued a ruling that upheld segregation. The ruling stated, “This prejudice, if it exists, is not created by law, and probably cannot be changed by law”. That ruling and the same tortured reasoning will be at the foundation of the infamous 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson where “separate but equal” will be enshrined into our national fiber.

But here, now, is the prime reason people fight for what is right and just, even when everything is most difficult and all uphill.  In 1954, the decision handed down by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education case overturned Plessy on the same exact legal ground that Sumner had argued on behalf of that young Black girl in 1849.

The student protesters at the Library Mall have grown up witnessing their fair amount of hatred, war, civil strife, and ample anger in our political culture. Clearly, there are very important issues that need to be addressed by society. They took a stand regarding the people of Gaza and were striving for a better and more just world where the high loss of life due to military attacks would cease. Being on the right side of history mattered to these students. It was a message, expressed in various ways, that I heard when interacting with them for two evenings during the protest. 

As we can see from the past couple of weeks in Madison, or from the pages of history, freedom of expression and speech are imperative. Northerners who were tired of the Southern machinations in the Senate had to fight mightily against those who thought they could control even the debates on the chamber floor to whitewash slavery. We read and heard about varying tactics designed to stop further discussion on the campus about the Israeli actions in Gaza. What we learn from both cases is why there is a need for the downtrodden to have assertive spokespeople.  Additionally, participating in a project or mission larger than oneself is part of the educational process at a place of higher learning. Those students who participated in the protests knew they could play a role in the international conversations about Gaza.

Charles Sumner proved to be an essential American, without ever knowing the full extent that his arguments would take hold and move a nation forward. He fully understood how the powerful men of his time made multiple attempts to shut down his dissent of the slaveholders.  UW-protesters felt in various ways the power of an institution being used to stem their message about an international issue that does strike at the core of our humanity.

History will long recall the worldwide actions in 2024 on behalf of the people of Gaza. Who can say how the resolve and commitment of the UW protestors this spring may sail on the wind of history? Or where it may land?

College Protests Against Israeli Military Policy In Gaza Fosters Much-Needed National Dialogue About Palestinians

I was living in Door County, the land of wonderful sunsets and perfect hiking trails, as college students protested in the 1980s against South African apartheid.  While much in favor of cutting financial ties with the racist government and divesting funds, I readily admit to being more mindful of the news about those protests and their reasoning than feeling engaged with it. The feelings I have, however, about protests now underway on college campuses nationwide, as determined and highly motivated young people bring their voices to stopping the military overreach of Israeli forces in Gaza, resonates far more deeply. Due to social media that allows for reports and video from the rubble-strewn homes and streets, along with the scenes of Palestinian deaths and burials, it is impossible to not be engaged in this moment that faces us all.  Rather than acting dismissively of the protesters or reacting angrily to their message, we should listen, as they have something very important to say.

I am struck by some of the comments to be found in news reports from those who think the tents and bullhorns urging a policy change are over the top.  The ones making such claims are doing so from mostly an anti-Palestinian perspective. The fact is these protests are rather tame, lest we forget what occurred in the Vietnam War era, when in 1970, in one of the grand stories about the Richard Nixon presidency buses literally were placed around the White House.  D.C. Transit used buses in a bumper-to-bumper formation to form a ring at the direction of the police.  Nixon and the Secret Service feared that antiwar demonstrators may try to storm the White House.  Over the years of reading about this period, it reminded me of how President Abraham Lincoln might have felt about Confederates coming over the Potomac River from Virginia in 1861 in an effort to take the White House..

While the protest outside the White House was obviously not on a college campus, and while many of the protests in the 1970s over the war had violent moments, it needs to be stated that the vast majority of campus protests underway this month are peaceful.  That does not excuse the very slim number of people who attempt to hijack the protests for their own aims, nor do those at the margins detract from the overriding issue. The justified demands of the protests center on divestiture from firms that support this over-the-top and relentlessly eager war by Israel against the people of Gaza. 

History shows that a strong power occupying another people results in continuous strife and war.  The barbaric and soulless murder and rampaging by Hamsa that occurred on October 7th in Israel absolutely required a military reaction. What we too often fail to talk about, however, or understand, is what Hamas did was not committed in a vacuum. The people of Gaza would have never entertained allowing that group to have a foothold if not for decades of built-up anger over Israeli policies.  Choices were made on all sides.  When Hamas attacked, they had two goals. One was creating terror from the slaughtering, but the second was provoking Israel to overreact.  Knowing the far-right wing in the Israeli coalition government would have to be assuaged for Prime Minister Netanyahu to remain in power and not face his ongoing criminal charges unrelated to this war, Hamas wished to foment a calamity of the kind playing out now in Gaza.  Israeli policymakers chose a scorched earth policy, caring no more for the Palestinians locked into that sliver of ground any more than Hamas does. So far, over 54,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza from this war.

Large swaths of the American public cared no more about Palestinian rights or statehood than the governments of Arab nations who were found mouthing sentiments about this group over the decades.  But all of a sudden, a dam has broken wide allowing young, energized, and vocal college and university students a platform to say what needs to be stated loudly and clearly.  If Israel thought they only had a military war to contend with, one in part of their own making after decades of occupation and hostilities, they surely now know the larger problem they face is worldwide condemnation and revulsion over what they are doing in Gaza. The PR war will likely create far more hurdles for Israel than their land war.

I first studied this region as a freshman in high school, where Mrs. Marge Glad (who left Holland with her family as WWII bore down on Europe) used a full semester to teach Middle Eastern history. She was an exceptional instructor, one I have always stated to be the most consequential in my life.  She hooked me on the region, but sadly, decades later, there are far more scars on the landscape and its people, than peace resolutions and reasons for hope. That is one reason I am with the protesters in spirit as the Palestinian people are too often marginalized and forgotten.  The sobering truth now of what happens when conditions are not improved for dislocated people cannot be easily dismissed.  I applaud and deeply approve of the protests on campuses nationwide.

Let Us Cheer The White House Correspondents’ Dinner!

Today we celebrate one of my favorite Saturdays of the year. Tonight is the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington. This year Colin Jost is the headliner for the event that will be covered on the major all-news networks. (We do not allow Fox News in our home, having deleted the absurdity from our channel lineup about 15 years ago, but in years past that thin-skinned partisan outlet did not cover the dinner.) The dinner is focused on the First Amendment, and one of my favorite parts of the event is to see the new faces of journalists who receive scholarships. In addition, there is no way to celebrate the working press today without thinking about Evan Gershkovich. The Wall Street Journal reporter is being held in a prison in Russia. (Another reason Fox will not carry the program. After all, how can they play to the base of the Putin fan club—err—the GOP—-by showcasing a reporter being held hostage at the same time they carry water for Russia? Thanks, by the way, to Mediaite’s daily news links, making it so I can be kept abreast of Fox’s behavior without needing to be subjected to it in my home.) I now offer some memories from over the decades of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, a valued and wonderful event.

An Idea For National Book Reading In Election Season, “The Problem Of Democracy: The Presidents Adams Confront The Cult Of Personality”

There are those times when a national organization or library system will forward the idea that people far and wide read the same book and have discussions about the topics and lessons found within the pages. As the nation is in the midst of a presidential election year and the intensity among the highly energized partisan tribes will only increase heading to November, this small-time blogger on the Madison isthmus has a book recommendation we all might be able to agree is a worthwhile investment of our time.

The Problem Of Democracy was resting on the top shelf of one of my bookcases (my books are placed in chronological order rather than more typical arrangements found in libraries) until several weeks ago. On a late Friday night, I got up on a small ladder, pulled the book down, and soon was turning the pages. When I write the read has been a thought-provoking, enriching, and highly entertaining adventure I need to note those words are an understatement. Friends to our home over the years often hear me claim that I am reading, “the best book I have picked up”. What I mean is the enthusiasm about the topic the author(s) are exploring is driven by a powerful narrative, new facts about a topic have emerged, or new perspectives about a well-known topic allow me to think things anew. That is precisely what Nancy Isenberg and Andrew Burstein have done in this dual biography of John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams.

The book plot at 30,000 feet is best encapsulated in this paragraph found on the Amazon site featuring this book.

The problem of democracy is an urgent problem; the father-and-son presidents grasped the perilous psychology of politics and forecast what future generations would have to contend with: citizens wanting heroes to worship and covetous elites more than willing to mislead. Rejection at the polls, each after one term, does not prove that the presidents Adams had erroneous ideas. Intellectually, they were what we today call “independents,” reluctant to commit blindly to an organized political party. No historian has attempted to dissect their intertwined lives as Nancy Isenberg and Andrew Burstein do in these pages, and there is no better time than the present to learn from the American nation’s most insightful malcontents.

Father and son, John and John Quincy, were also best friends.  Constantly writing long and meaningful letters that often rooted their political circumstances into the times of the ‘the ancients’, those philosophers and classical writers that both men had read deeply and talked about in ways we banter of the current well-known writers and pols.  When they tangled over the questions about republics and leaders or termed the idea of democracy with disdainful connotations it all came from decades of reasoning and shared experiences. They were living in the years of the French Revolution. When they looked at the cult of personability in their time both men thought of Benjamin Franklin.  When they talked of leadership, they viewed the merits of learned men meeting the national needs as the ideal, as opposed to who was famous or well-connected.  When viewing how best a nation could move forward, John Adams thought having social constraints be it a church or local community or government was superior to the other leading view of progress best exemplified by Thomas Jefferson.  He believed that man could decide to change and better himself through education and enlightenment.

No one should think this book has no strong woman to balance the narrative.  If you know this slice of history, you realize Abigail Adams is not a shrinking violet.  She is presented in the first portion of the book giving John Quincy his middle name, a name from her family, at a time when most new births did not have such a name. Such naming would take decades to become the norm.  Her letters to JQA when half a world away with his globe-trotting father show how powerful a mother can be no matter the distance. That power was also disturbing when it came to interjecting itself into the love life of JQA. I am sure, however, that both parents were most proud of their son when at the age of 15 he traveled alone for 50 miles, heading westward from St. Peterburg, Russia during a blizzard. (No one can say history is boring.)

Writing a dual biography is not easy, and having it read smoothly for a reader is difficult to achieve. One example of how the authors did this successfully was when working with themes of the Adams men dealing with life goals and uncertainties when they were both, respectively, in their 20s. When JQA reaches that age, the authors revert backward showing how the senior of the two shared the same tangled emotions.

This book is not fast-paced, and readers would not want any nuggets left on the editing room floor. I find myself reading about 30 pages at a time and then pondering the times and events that the Adams men lived.  I was on the front lawn a couple weeks ago when a dogwalker asked me what I was thinking, as it looked like I was a “million miles away”.  I told the young woman I had just read a beautiful paragraph that alerted readers that JQA, since he was serving overseas in a diplomatic post, never once saw his father when he had served as president, or ever stepped into the residences that Adams used as his official homes.

Why this book matters in our current bombastic and highly rhetorical election season, and voters across the land should read it, has to do with what character ideals we should want in a leader. What both Adams men knew and concerned themselves with was a view that democracy’s greatest risk was demagoguery. Voters today, in varying ways, claim they desire nonpartisan statesmanship, but then align with the most ‘entertaining’ and infamous politicians. At this rancid moment in our politics might it not be time to at least talk about intellectual and moral values and how they fit into our future? The Adams men talked and wrote about this for decades, and after the slow pace of reading and thinking about this book and its reasoning, I think it is a needed salve for our nation’s political wounds. Reading and thinking might still have a place in our land.

I started reading history—or more to the point of loving to read history–in the 8th grade. Before heading home for a two-week Christmas vacation from school, I asked Mr. Appleyard if I could take a teacher’s edition of a textbook on American history, a book not used in his classroom. He said sure, but I am sure he thought……”Why”? Now at age 62, I find my interests still piqued with stories rich in adventure and lessons still to be learned that are relevant to our nation.

Donald Trump Does Not Care For Wife, Children, Or Nation

Coming to a New York courtroom starting on Monday morning! The jury is seated, the reporters have their pencils sharpened, and the nation is waiting.

One way historians gauge a president’s performance is through the lens of character. That assessment allows us insight into George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, along with others. When character is lacking, historians underscore what happened to the nation as with James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Richard Nixon. But historians have never had to put into context such low-brow behavior, such disdain from a president to the citizenry, and such continuous disregard for the honor and dignity that is supposed to be affiliated with the highest office in the land than when dealing with Donald Trump.

I came from a rural conservative and highly Republican community and the idea of anyone having multiple wives, in and of itself, would be most objectionable, but to then cheat on the third wife who had just delivered the fifth child with a porn star……..!! But then, I grew up when principles were applied and character in the White House mattered.

I recall a man who cheated on his wife in Hancock, Wisconsin and when driving on the back country roads was so ashamed he hunkered down behind the steering wheel so as not to be so visible to other motorists. Trump, however, has no shame, discretion, morals, or respect for anyone. Not his wife, his children, or his nation.

Donald Trump is white Trash, pure Trash.

History Shows Examples Of How To Pass Ukraine Funding, A Vital Need For International Law

This is going to be one of those weekends when we pay close attention to what is happening in Congress as the House has opened debate on several foreign aid bills, the most important being the needed support of Ukraine. That policy move is vital. Period. But given the fact we are also dealing with the most absurd base of the GOP opting for tantrums and their usual level of histrionics as they do the work of Russian President Vladimir Putin in combined efforts to undermine the process and the vote, means this political sideshow to the serious work of governing will also be on our radar. While many Republicans will make the correct decision and support the funding bill, it must be noted that Democrats will step up and make sure the policy is passed and the funds approved. It will not be the first time in this process that Republicans could not muster the votes to do the nation’s business.

Thursday night, Democrats were needed to pass the measure out of the Rules Committee, and that was historic. It was the first time that minority members of the Rules Committee voted in favor of reporting a rule to make up for the majority votes against it.

This morning, the House voted 316-94 to bring the four-bill funding package to the floor. That includes the much-needed aid for Ukraine, Taiwan, and monies to placate the Israeli lobby in their desire to continue war atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza. Each measure will pass with wide margins. But the vote this morning was most telling, and historic! We watched as 55 Republicans voted against advancing the package. To make sure this Ukraine funding bill did not flounder, 165 Democrats voted to bring up the bills. Republicans only had 151 votes.

Putting this into the larger mix, let us note that Republicans also have needed Democrats to pass several major pieces of legislation over the past year. Those include multiple spending measures to keep the government funded and the annual defense bill. These actions by Democrats were made essential due to the far-right wanting to attack women’s reproductive health care rights, attack transgender teenagers, and use racial diversity and inclusion policies at the Pentagon as a wedge issue to make cheap headlines and raise campaign cash. Meanwhile, Democrats worked in a bipartisan fashion with Republicans who were willing to do the work they all were sent to Washington to accomplish.

The House is now slated to vote on the bills early Saturday afternoon, and Johnson will again need substantial help from Democrats to get them over to the Senate. But I want to note this angst in the nation about funding bills for foreign aid is not new, nor is the path about a remedy to the discord anything new. I harken back to a favorite story, a perfect historical event that meshes with what is playing out now in Washington.

I am always reminded of the actions that Congressman Richard Nixon took in 1946 in the face of a very isolationist House of Representatives when dealing with foreign aid. There was a need in Europe that required American involvement, and RN, as part of the Herter Commission traveled to Europe to make an economic assessment. In the following weeks, Nixon would be a strong, committed advocate for the Marshall Plan.

But it did not come easy.

As RN penned in The Memoirs of Richard Nixon his polling showed that 75% of his constituents were “resolutely opposed” to foreign aid. But Congressman Nixon understood the facts, and the need to strongly support economic aid for large portions of Europe. He prepared newspaper columns and went out on the hustings to promote the issue of foreign aid. It made sense then, and history of course shows RN was correct.

We need more Republicans who will speak the truth to their constituents about Ukraine aid and the need for funding this war against Putin. The strident absurdity of the ‘Freedom Caucus’ (the irony is not lost at this desk) will be on dramatic display this weekend, with their ubiquitous volume and discord akin to the howling monkeys at the zoo on a warm July afternoon. I put money on Marjorie Taylor Greene throwing feces by sundown on Saturday. And Matt Gaetz looking for his baseball glove.

The madness of those jokers and the others in their camp run counter to the truly powerful and important players in our history that met their moment in time. Such an event from 1946 is told in The Presidents Club by Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy. It is about two Presidents of the United States speaking to the nation in a joint radio broadcast on the weighty matter of foreign aid.

Following the end of World War II, a pressing need across much of the world presented itself–namely how to ensure starvation did not do as much harm as the war itself. To find ways to meet the food shortages and work to make sure foodstuffs got to the places most in need President Truman called on former President Hoover, who had worked wonders with starving populations under President Wilson.

As the story moves along Hoover is abroad on a fact-finding mission but Truman feels the need to have a national radio broadcast about the urgency of the pressing problem. Hoover says he needs to fulfill his travel plans as the people of India, China, and Japan would be disappointed should he not visit. Truman insisted, however, that the speech must go forward.

Therefore, on April 19, 1946, Truman opened the broadcast from Washington which would air on all four networks with Hoover joining in from Cairo.  It was simply unprecedented to have two leaders speak together in this fashion. As the authors note, where Truman was practical in the address Hoover was “preacherly”.  Hoover had seen the ravages of war and the plight of people that would never leave him.

We know the test of mankind that year was met, but it took the combined efforts of Truman and Hoover to get the international problem handled. The story of the joint broadcast is a romantic one for radio junkies such as myself–but it is also a reminder of a political fact that too few grasp today.

Political opposites can work together for a larger goal. We WILL see that play out this weekend in Washington with the passage of the Ukraine funding bill. Let’s get it done.

In one minute and 24 seconds, I tell the story of that truly inspiring radio address.

Donald Trump Talks About President Abe Lincoln; Should Act Like Him

It can be said that the United States is showing the world what our basic values and principles are all about as a former president stands trial on a bevy of felony charges. No one is above our nation’s law, which is a mighty important lesson to impart around the globe. Following an exhaustive investigation Donald Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records and sits in a courtroom for what promises to be a six-week trial. This process will be time-consuming and make for an even hotter political stew as partisans take their positions in an already too rhetorically driven nation.  

Like everything else in the Trump orbit, some gleefully carry water for him, such as the right-wing channel Fox News, which turned a blind eye to the trial for much of Monday, choosing to instead cover anti-Israel protests in major American cities. By the end of the day, conservative talking heads were trying to convince their viewers that The New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman was not a solid journalist. (As if viewers of conservative outlets had ever heard of the woman.)  The painted word image from one of the nation’s top journalists describing Trump falling asleep in the New York courtroom has now become a part of the larger narrative about the court process underway. A process that very likely could land Trump as a convicted felon.

As I watched some of the daytime coverage on television and followed a few running blogs on news sites, the historic moment was being made in front of the nation’s eyes.  On the one hand, it was momentous and charged with energy while on the other hand, it was a sad commentary on what our nation fell for when a large section of the electorate buckled to Trump.  As I sat for a few minutes watching CNN my mind landed back on one of my heroes from our national story.  President Abraham Lincoln. Since Trump wandered into a word salad about Gettysburg this past weekend the story of the 16^th president seems most appropriate. But with Lincoln, this story showcases what character and integrity look like. 

In 1862, in the middle of the Civil War, the House Judiciary Committee investigated how a message from President Lincoln had leaked to the press. Rumor had it that First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln had passed it to a middleman, which increased the rumor mill that the First Lady was treasonous to the North since her Southern family had different views on the war and related issues. But the middleman refused to say what he knew. Then a surprise witness showed up to answer the committee’s questions: Lincoln himself.

“President Lincoln today voluntarily appeared before the House Judiciary Committee,” reported the New York Tribune, “and gave testimony in the matter of the premature publication in the Herald of a portion of his last annual message.” Lincoln’s message to Congress in December 1861 had been published in the New York Herald on the same morning that it was sent to Capitol Hill. The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by John Hickman investigated the leak and called Herald correspondent Henry Wikoff to testify. Wikoff refused to divulge his source, citing “an obligation of strictest secrecy.” Given Wikoff’s close friendship with Lincoln’s wife, many assumed that the correspondent was protecting the First Lady. The committee ordered the sergeant at arms to hold Wikoff.

But then the President went to the Capitol for a private meeting with Judiciary Committee members, walking in silently and holding his hat. Carl Sandburg writes that no one heard him enter and all of a sudden, the President was in the room. He assured them that no member of his family was involved and that no treasonous thoughts were a part of his family. The next day the committee released Wikoff.  The leaker was soon identified as a White House gardener.

You can watch this part of Carl Sandburg’s story being read by Senator Lowell Weicker during the 1973 Senate Watergate Committee hearings.

Facing charges head-on and acting with character is not what we have ever witnessed from Trump.  Hiding behind an army of lawyers (who sometimes get paid) is the only way Trump has ever faced any hardship.  Lincoln, however, with a decades-long record of being a fair man with guiding principles that could never be questioned only needed to assert himself with his word as his bond.  This slice of the former president’s life is not likely to become a talking point at Trump rallies.  But the account of that day in the Judiciary Committee in 1862 is what our nation needs to recall as to how our political culture once looked like, and how it operated.  Trump reminds us, as this trial continues, of how much we have lost.

Alexander Hamilton Might Have Been Writing About Donald Trump

Some historians call the 1800 presidential election one of the harshest, if not the most mean-spirited in our history when placed into the context of the race being the first where political parties were vying for supremacy in the nation. Add in the fears of unrest resulting from the French Revolution and expanding ideas about equality and democracy, and it is not difficult to feel the tensions and rhetoric that resulted. For all that has been researched and written concerning that election cycle, it remains clear that one document—a written blast that was upwards of 50 pages in length—is the epitome of what it felt like to experience life in the United States during that 1800 election.

The Federalist Party was splintered and fractured and the chasms so deep and wide that it was clear President John Adams would not and could not win a second term.  One of the prolific writers and thinkers of the time, a man who roused thoughtful discourse as a Founding Father and equal amounts of controversy as a public figure for the rest of his life, was Alexander Hamilton. A man who, decades before his fame was deepened by a Broadway play, was my favorite figure from the Revolutionary Era.  His desire for a strong economic plan with commerce and trade to buttress a fragile new nation makes him a pivotal player in history books, and one to pay attention to for modern-day readers.

In 1800, he was determined to undermine Adams, and while certainly not embracing Thomas Jefferson saw the views and concerns of High Federalists to be of such importance and value to public discussion that it required an open letter to Adams. The document simply seethes, and depending on your perspective, is either about the deep concerns of national interests or a pure loathing of the incumbent president.   But as I read the main thrusts of the points Hamilton raises in the letter, it is impossible not to see how the language could also be a pure link to the tragic life of Donald Trump, and his tortured and unhealthy mind as we enter the dramatic election contest in 2024.

Hamilton writes of Adams, but we can easily insert Trump’s name, “he does not possess the talents adapted to the Administration of Government, and there are great and intrinsic defects in his character, which unfit him for the office Chief Magistrate.”

He writes Adam’s mind (Trump’s mind) was marked by such “disgusting egotism, “distempered jealousy”, and ungovernable indiscretion” that they could not be overlooked.

Hamilton writes of Adams (but we know it to be so true concerning Trump) that he could not forgive those in his party who gave their support to a rival candidate. “…his rage has been so vehement, as to have caused him, more than once, to forget the decorum, which, in his station, ought to have been an inviolable law.’  

Hamilton wrote that Adams (Trump) displayed an “unfitness” for high office by allowing his imagined hurt to confuse him.  It was the “gusts of passion” that concerned Hamilton.  Then striking to the heart of Adams, or should I write Trump, Hamilton writes that John could not stop himself from construing eulogistic tributes to the first president as an insult to the second.   It seems Hamilton also must have foreseen Trump and his erratic behavior.

Quotes from The Problem Of Democracy pages 227-28 by Nancy Isenberg and Andrew Burnstein.