What  is  to  be  done?

 
 

A  government  of  national  unity  –  of  course  

 
We as a people are utterly and disastrously divided – faced off, on
opposite sides of a seemingly unbridgeable chasm. On the one side are
the forgotten and dispossessed – they have risen up in a populist revolt.
But their plight gave opening to a sociopath and his strongman
blandishments – rather than the white knight who might save them, he
threatens the blackest totalitarian night that can befall a people. In
response, there has quickly arisen a plethora of movements, to set the
course right (for a sample, see a brief postscript at the end).
Herein, a proposal, from three weeks ago, to bridge that chasm – a
government of national unity. (When viewed on the web, an
accompanying document, next down the page, sets the stage with a ‘why
and how’ post mortem, an autopsy.)

 
Wherever  you  come  out  on  policy:  
 
• Money  in  politics,  plutocratic  control  of  governance,  which  displaces  
democracy,  and  so  to  the  Supreme  Court    
• And  so,  wresting  the  economy  back  from  plutocrats,  for  a  middle  class  /  
elevating  out  of  an  underclass  
• Roe  v  Wade,  and  women’s  reproductive  rights,  and  so  the  Supreme  Court  
• Safe  stewardship  of  nuclear  weapons  
• Use  of  American  power,  military  and  diplomatic,  around  the  globe,  and  
dealing  with  foreign  heads-­‐of-­‐state  bullies,  some  nuclear  madmen  
• Respect,  for  ‘all  god’s  chillun’  –  utterly  rejecting  bigotry  
• Resolution  of  immigrant  status  
• And  so  forth  …  and  so  forth,  on  policy  …  
 
Wherever  you  may  come  out  of  policy  –  I  think  it  likely  there  can  be  fairly  
widespread  agreement  that  we  cannot  tolerate,  to  allow  control  of  the  levers  of  state  
by:  
 
Ø What  has  been  unmistakably  demonstrated,  over  two  years  of  campaigning,  to  
be  a  sociopathic  personality  

 
 
 

What  is  to  be  done?  

Precisely  –  precisely  –  this  situation  is  what  our  founding  fathers  had  in  mind  with  
the  Electoral  College.  
 
While  there  is  next–to-­‐endless  argument  about  pros  and  cons  of  the  Electoral  
College,  the  record  shows  that  its  creators  intended  a  ‘second  look,’  by  wise  minds,  
to  insure  a  sound  choice,  for  the  road  ahead.  

 
     

 
 

What  is  to  be  done?  
page  2  

 
For  instance  (quoting  the  New  York  Post),  Alexander  Hamilton  thought  the  electors  
would  make  sure  “the  office  of  President  will  never  fall  to  the  lot  of  any  man  who  is  
not  in  an  eminent  degree  endowed  with  the  requisite  qualifications.”  
 
In  the  present  case,  the  electorate  –  itself  –  also  made  the  sound  choice.    By  what  we  
consider  the  democratic  bedrock:    a  majority  vote.    The  popular  tally  rejects  the  
sociopath  with  a  2.8  million-­‐vote  margin.    That  betters  the  sociopath  by  a  solid    
2  plus  percentage  points  –  a  distinct,  unshakeable  rejection,  by  the  fundamental  
democratic  criterion:    majority  vote.  
 
In  this  case,  the  Electoral  College  need  only  simply  confirm  the  wise  choice  made  by  
the  people.    In  fact  ,  there  is  a  change.org  petition,  addressed  to  the  Electors,  now  
with  over  four  and  a  half  million  signatures.  
 
Thus  the  Electoral  College  can  recognize  that  the  Oval  Office  does  not  tolerate  a  
sociopathic  type,  who  
 
• Lies  –  constantly  –  seemingly  unable  even  to  discern  reality  from  fantasy.  
• Cunningly  uses  these  sound-­‐bite  lies  to  hoodwink  a  vulnerable  cohort,  à  la  
takeovers  by  totalitarians  from  history.    (Vulnerable?    32  million  Americans  
are  illiterate  –  cannot  even  read;  68  million  read  between  a  sixth-­‐  and  eighth-­‐
grade  level.    On  the  order  of  20  percent  of  the  population,  certainly  more  
than  the  total  Trump  vote  …  if  being  illiterate  of  course  does  not  favor  
turning  out  to  vote.)  
• Lacking  any  commitment  to  principle,  such  as  to  the  Constitution,  shifts  
chameleon-­‐like,  his  thrust  and  demeanor.    To  serve  best  his  con  of  whichever,  
whoever  is  the  target  of  the  moment.    A  particular  sociopath  marker.  
• Reflexively  rounds  on  anyone  who  criticizes  him,  no  matter  how  insignificant  
the  perceived  slight,  counter-­‐attacking,  usually  with  more  lies.    Obviating  any  
possibility  for  productive  dialog.    So  keeping  an  enemies  list  for  retribution,  
investing  resources  in  attempted  revenge.  
• Vice  versa,  reflexively  responds  to  anyone  praising  /  flattering  him,  so  sets  
himself  up  to  be  played  by  that  person,  we  might  say  ‘like  a  violin.’  
• Adopts  positions  following  the  principle,  “hmmm  …  I’ll  latch  onto  what  that  
last  person  I  spoke  to  said.”    So,  constantly  changing  …  
• All  of  this  revealing:    there  is  no  ‘there’  there.    No  actual  core  of  a  person,  
evincing  absence  of  any  reliable,  comfortable  identity,  which  others  might  
depend  on  going  forward.  
o To  wit,  a  primary  marker  for  the  sociopathic  personality.    A  most  
fragile  ego,  lacking  much  if  any  authenticity  at  all.    With  of  course  
most  extreme  vulnerability,  and  so  bullying  its  defense  mechanism,  to  
erect  fortress  walls  around  the  extreme,  felt  weaknesses.  
• Consequently  leaves  utterly  no  basis  for  trust  –  the  necessary  bedrock  for  
governance.  

 
     

 
 

What  is  to  be  done?  
page  3  

And  without  regard  for  others  –  the  sociopathic  ‘disease’  –  no  basis  for  
championing  a  public  good.    Necessarily  the  starting  place  for  public  service.  

 
This  does  not  even  begin  to  reference  the  anti-­‐social  verbal  savagery,  a  sort  of  
machine  gun  fusillade  all  around  the  polity.    With  utter  disregard  for  sociality.  
 
Most  ominously,  history  tells  us  the  instigation  of  a  regime  of  constant  lying  signals  
the  threat  of  an  authoritarian  strongman  takeover.    A  fantasy  is  baseline  and  the  
springboard  for  seizure  of  power,  as  further  lies  generate  further  pretext  
construction  (in  history,  for  an  example,  the  figment  of  a  ‘master  race’  entitled  to  
obliterate  others  …  not  so  far,  sadly,  from  white  nationalists  brought  center  stage  in  
the  sociopath’s  cohort).  
 
Besides  a  sociopath  on  course  to  a  strongman  takeover,  what  is  our  larger  context?  

 
 

Sundered  in  two  

 

An  America  sundered  in  two.  
 
The  companion  piece  here,  “Diagnosis,  and  prognosis,”  goes  to  one  of  the  two  
America’s,  those  forgotten  and  abandoned.    One  half,  on  one  side  of  a  stark  chasm.  
 
America,  where  two  camps  are  utterly  unable  to  countenance  or  deal  with  each  
other.    What  can  possibly  succeed,  with  such  utter  division?  
 
The  time  cries  out  –  screams  –  for  national  reconciliation.  

 
 
 

How,  to  reach  a  government  of  national  unity  –  with  real  change?  

Actually,  the  outline  of  steps  forward  appears  fairly  straightforward.  
 
• One  individual  from  either  party  in  the  top  two  executive  slots.    Since  the  
Democrats  won  what  we  consider  to  be  the  democratic  decider,  namely  a  
popular  majority,  they  take  the  presidency.  But  in  fact  the  two  individuals  
commit  to  a  co-­‐presidency.  
 
• Both  the  candidates  that  the  parties  mounted  this  cycle  were  deemed  widely  
and  deeply  unacceptable.  Those  two  disqualified  themselves.  
 
• Instead,  there  are  imminent  individuals  out  there.    The  season  has  made  the  
few  obvious  choices  almost  unmistakable.    The  challenge  –  of  course  –  is  to  
agree  just  which  of  them.  
 

What  is  to  be  done?  
page  4  

With  a  fully  Republican  Congress,  checks  on  policy  will  be  built  in.  Vice  versa,
with  real  change  committed,  there  will  also  be  transparency  against  any
further  Congressional  obstructionism.

The  agenda  overall  must  –  finally  –  be  fundamental  change,  from  plutocratic  
plundering,  toward  popular  welfare.    Every  policy  step  by  this  ‘unity  government’  
will  be  gauged  against  that  measure.  
Nuts  and  bolts  
With  sufficient  commitment,  there  can  be  agreement  among  Democrats  on  the  
person  for  that  half  of  the  Electors’  vote.    Equally,  there  are  Republicans  of  honor  
and  integrity  who  will  appreciate  the  call  to  reconciliation  –  and  away  from  the  
shame  currently  hovering  around  the  party  of  Lincoln.  
Trump  shows  306  Electoral  votes.    Only  37  of  those  Electors,  out  of  538  total  
– not 7  percent  –  would  vote  honestly,  to  reach  the  unity  outcome.

According  to  Fox,  there  are  "roughly  160  Republican  [Electors]  in  the  15  states  that  
Trump  won  and  don’t  have  laws  [binding  Electors]  to  the  winner:  Arizona,  
Arkansas,  Georgia,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Missouri,  North  
Dakota,  Pennsylvania,  Tennessee,  Texas,  Utah  and  West  Virginia.”    Pennsylvania  and  
Utah  immediately  come  to  mind  here,  also  perhaps  Georgia  and  Arizona.  
For  "states  that  by  law  require  [Electors]  to  ballot  for  the  nominee  who  won  the  
most  votes,  'their  vote  would  still  be  counted  [for  the  Democratic  unity  candidate],  
they  would  simply  pay  a  small  fine.'  "  (  !  )    Among  these,  Florida  and  North  Carolina  
come  to  mind,  particularly.  
That  comes  out  to  as  many  as  six  states,  at  least,  for  finding  Republican  Electors  to  
vote  the  unity  slate  –  states  where  sentiment  strongly  objected  to  the  sociopath.  
Prominent  Republicans,  who  are  committed  to  a  unity  government,  can  not  only  
identify  an  appropriate  individual  for  the  Electors’  ballot.    They  can  identify  the  37  
Republican  Electors.    Most  to  the  point,  they  can  sit  down  with  those  individuals,  to  
discuss  the  way  forward.  
Some  –  many  –  will  say  the  nation  is  not  at  a  sufficient  state  of  crisis,  to  precipitate  a  
unity  government,  designed  to  bridge  the  chasm.  
What  do  you  think?    Upon  reviewing  the  data  above,  what  do  you  conclude?    Where  
and  whom  will  you  lead?  

 
     

 
 

What  is  to  be  done?  
page  5  

If  there  was  a  November  pitchfork  surprise,  there  can  now  be  a  December  Electoral  
College  surprise  –  though  quite  opposite  the  last  time  the  popular  vote  went  down,  
in  2000,  also  in  our  lifetimes.  
 
This  time  there  is  the  wherewithal  to  take  a  joint  path  –  together.  
 
 
 
David  Allen  
Concord  MA  
 
updated  to  be  current    
December  15,  2016  
 
https://goo.gl/HhwrHz  

 
 

POSTSCRIPT  

 
A  sample  of  extraordinary  efforts  to  correct  the  election  outcome:  
 
• Larry  Lessig  alerts  that  the  Electoral  College  can  be  found  unconstitutional.    
Most  notably,  48  states  choose  Electors  on  a  winner-­‐take-­‐all  basis.    That  
violates,  egregiously,  constitutionally  enshrined  “one  person,  one  vote.”    
Then  the  2.8  million-­‐popular  vote  outright  majority  prevails.  
• Five  state  vote  recounts  are  underway,  pushing  past  Trump  resistance.    
While  incomplete,  they  unearthed  for  instance  pervasive  voting  equipment  
failure  in  Detroit.  
 
Vis-­‐à-­‐vis  Russian  hacking:  
• A  Presidential  investigation  of  the  hacking  began,  urgently.  
• The  CIA  finds  Russia  did  enter  the  campaign  to  tilt  the  result  to  Trump.  One  
CIA  voice  sees  a  9/11-­‐level  event,  with  ‘another  vote’  the  only  possibility.  
 
Vis-­‐à-­‐vis  the  Electoral  College  vote,  itself:  
• A  group  of  blue  state  Electors  have  joined  together  and  seek  common  cause  
with  enough  red  state  Electors.  
• My  original  Commentary,  as  published  here,  proposes  a  government  of  
national  unity.  
 
The  Hill  offers  a  recent  summary.  
 
Perhaps  no  other  American  presidential  election  has  precipitated  so  much,  such  
varied  –  such  immediate  –  effort  to  correct  it.