Back to Traditional Governance?

There are several things about the Trump presidency that concern me; his administration is a mixed bag, to say the least. But I was struck by one criticism out of Indian country that prompted me to remember one aspect of the nature of the governance of the United States that has changed since the origins of that nation.

As we roll up on the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America, we have become accustomed to the concept of the career politician. There are still those who rail against it, yet it has become the status quo. People who engage in national politics are expected to do so as a career avocation. And those offices are now monetized in such a way that one term in office is sufficient to establish a long-term lifestyle arrangement.

Gone are the days of the public servant that temporarily lays aside his/her own avocation to offer a term of service to his/her country, after which they resume their previous activities. We forget that the Founding Fathers, whatever you may think of them, were successful businessmen who felt compelled to pledge their “lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to a cause greater than themselves. Several of the signers of Declaration of Independence paid dearly for that pledge.

Now we have a chief executive that has temporarily laid aside his own financial endeavors to offer service to his country. The merit of his efforts is far from decided and the impact of his legacy remains to be seen. But it seems rather disingenuous to criticize him for maintaining an interest in his personal affairs outside the realm of his responsibilities to the country.

By law, he will only have eight years to make his mark on the national history. At this point, I expect that he will then gladly return to his former activities without any further adieu. I have no reason to suppose that his motive is significantly different than that which he stated from the beginning: he wanted the opportunity to allow an individual from outside the political establishment to mold the trajectory of the national history for a change.

How that will ultimately play out remains to be seen. Whether or not the Trump empire continues to flourish while he is only peripherally involved in its day-to-day operations is just that: peripheral.

One thought on “Back to Traditional Governance?

  1. The Tree with a Beard

    WEll said, Blacksmith. Leadership in our traditional Governance was for life, or until we were no longer able to serve. Women, whether Clan Mothers or Elderly clan Matrons, the cHief-makers, held the power to make or break a would be Chief. If you wanted to be Chief, you most likely would not rise to that position, as that would show a motive for power & prestige, and such a one would be more inclined to abuse such power. Ben Franklin, in 1754, attended a Recitation of the “Great Wampum laws” and stated that ” if 5 Nations of Savages can unite, 13 colonies should be able to do the same”, o(or something to that effect). The Great Law was a direct influence on the US Constitution, but in the process, the US Founders omitted the Role of the Chief-makers/Clan mothers. Chiefs had to be of good hearts, minds & Spirits; of high moral character & and if they erred in their duties, they could be/would be removed by the Clan Mothers/ Matrons. Too many are judging Pres. Trump on the News about him, but most news is Democratically Controlled. I take him at face value, until he shows me different. Don’t expect anything good to be said about him by MainStream news, it isn’t going to happen.

Comments are closed.