I first used this title in June of 2022.  That was just after the court overturned Roe v. Wade, a policy implemented in 1973 which legalized abortion with certain limits.  Abortion in the first three months was solely a woman’s choice; in the second trimester, she needed a doctor’s approval; in the third, the procedure could only be performed to save the mother’s life or health. 

     This happened in 2022, despite the fact that every poll concluded that at least 60% of Americans believed that abortion should be legal.  The so-called “originalist” conservative majority, argued that since abortion was not mentioned in the original Constitution of 1789, the 14th Amendment, asserting “equal protection under the laws,” did not apply.  Women also were not mentioned in the original Constitution, while slavery was justified –- and slaves were notoriously counted as “three-fifths of a man” to appease the Southern states’ desire for more representation in Congress.

     One-third of those opposed to most abortions agree that they should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.  But a number of states do not allow such exceptions.  What about an 11-year-old raped by her father?  Such cases are exceptional, but they do occur.  Roe was founded on the right to privacy.  What about medicines which can be purchased online?  The court is currently debating whether to outlaw that or not.

     The second Supreme Court case which I think shamed the court occurred in July of 2024.  Then the court ruled that a president has immunity from both former and future official acts, however wrong they might be.  That ruling has been expanded in favor of presidential power, allowing the executive to cancel monies authorized by Congress, fire governmental employees at will, and demolish entire entities, like the Department of Education.  The court has created an “Monarchical Presidency.”  So much for “originalism.”  The original Constitution was created to free the United States from a monarchy and proclaimed that this nation should “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican (i.e. non-royal) Form of Government.”

     The genius of this new form of government was a series of checks and balances.  Each of its three branches –- executive, legislative, and judicial –- should be able to control the others.  A common symbol for this separation of powers is that of a three-legged stool.  With both Congress and the Supreme Court consistently supporting the President, we now have a one-legged stool.

     This imbalance is currently being perpetuated in the court’s latest decision, Louisiana vs. Callais, ruled that a voting rights district could not be created to preserve black votes.  Eradicating the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the court ruled that race could not be used as a factor in redistricting since blacks voted in the same numbers as whites.  This ruling ignored the geography of voting districts.  Louisiana’s population is one-third black.  However, only one of six voting districts comprises a black area. 

     Within days of this dreadful decision, both Louisiana and Tennessee stopped voting which had already begun in older to redraw maps to favor whites.  The most infamous case so far is that of Memphis, a majority black city in Tennessee which the legislature has now parceled out between three white districts.

     What can be done about this?  Here Minneapolis and indeed the entire state of Minnesota leads the way.  Occupied by armed and masked ICE agents, who murdered two citizens, ordinary people organized, boycotted, and ultimately, forced ICE to leave the state.  COMMUNITY is the way out of this tyranny.  We need to organize against such moves.  Second, VOTING!  Democrats are already working to place their supporters at the polls.  I am donating heavily to both voting rights organizations and groups that register young people to vote.  The only way to prevent tyranny is to organize for democracy.  We can and must do this!

     One of the four medieval temperaments, “sanguine” means optimistic or positive, especially in an apparently bad or difficult situation.  (The others are choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic and these categories supposedly encompassed all people.)  I am sanguine by nature and I’ve found it especially helpful nowadays.  In recent weeks, Republicans have passed an outrageous anti-abortion law in Texas, which forbids any procedure after six weeks, when most women don’t even know they’re pregnant, has no exceptions for rape or incest, and empowers any citizen to arrest a woman or doctor and receive a $10,000 bounty.  A number of Republican state legislatures are severely limiting voting rights, in the hope of disenfranchising black and brown citizens – part of the “Make America Great Again” agenda, which only benefits whites.  And Republicans in Congress are currently refusing to raise the debt ceiling, as they did many times under the Trump presidency, which threatens that the U.S. government will go bankrupt – a major national calamity. 

     In the face of all this, most people are dismayed and discouraged.  I’m not.  I think that the Republicans have created a losing strategy.  Being anti-voting and anti-woman, as well as disagreeing to a standard parliamentary maneuver to fund the government (whose deficit they added considerably to with the Trump tax cuts, especially for rich people) seems to me a good way to lose elections.  I’m joined in this opinion by the eminent professor of history at Boston College, Heather Cox Richardson, who publishes a daily column called “Letter from an American.”   She argued on October 5 that Republicans under Mitch McConnell will force the Democrats to end the filibuster, a move that would tremendously help Biden’s agenda.

     Personally, I think the Republicans will lose big in 2022.  And I don’t think I’m being unduly unrealistic.  Whether that happens or not, it’s much pleasanter to live as an optimist than a pessimist.  In this, I think back to the seventeenth-century philosopher, Blaise Pascal.  In his so-called “wager,” he argued that it makes more sense to believe in God than not.  If you believe, and God exists, you win big.  If he doesn’t, you don’t lose much.  If you don’t believe in God, and he exists, you lose big.  If you don’t believe and God does not exist, nothing is lost or gained.

     A major objection to this argument, then and now, is that people are unable to will themselves into belief or disbelief.  But this premise does not hold.  Psychology argues convincingly that people can change their basic beliefs.  In this case, I think that living optimistically is not only a much more pleasant way to exist, but it also can aid political decisions.  Try it out!