“Nothing,” economist Milton Friedman once observed, “is so permanent as a temporary government program.” And nothing makes a government’s programs — or, more importantly, changes in its core values — more permanent than the loss of collective memory that comes with generational changes.

We’re hitting a big one soon. It worries me.

Next year, the first generation of Americans who weren’t yet born on September 11, 2001 will come of age. They’ll graduate high school. They’ll get jobs. They’ll vote.

What they will not do, because they can’t, is remember: Remember a time before the 9/11 attacks, or the changes in American society that took place in the aftermath of those attacks. They won’t be equipped to yearn for better days that they’ve only heard about at second hand from their parents and grandparents.

They won’t remember a time when one could walk into an airport and get on an airplane without risking sexual assault in public by employees of the Transportation Security Administration.

They won’t remember a time before the domestic national security state was consolidated under an overtly nationalist label more appropriate to its creators’ police state aspirations: The Department of Homeland Security.

They won’t remember an era when the news wasn’t dotted with reports of American troops killed in Afghanistan, which the US has occupied since before they took their first steps.

They won’t notice that the US Border Patrol is twice as large now (20,000 employees) as it was when they were born and four times as large as it was in 1995. Or that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, roughly the same size, wasn’t even created until shortly after they were born to replace the smaller and slightly less Darth-Vaderish Immigration and Naturalization Service.

They won’t remember a time when the incidence of police “checkpoints” conducting unconstitutional searches in the name of stopping DUIs and drug trafficking ranged from exceedingly rare to non-existent (and when they were fewer than now for immigration enforcement in the 100-mile wide “constitution-free zone” on the borders and coastlines), or when there weren’t cameras at every intersection and scattered between to watch them whenever they left their homes.

Because they won’t remember those days, all the evils we’ve allowed the state to impose upon us since 2001 will seem, well, normal to them. And from normality follows permanence.

We’ve failed this next generation. Let’s hope they do a better job of saving themselves than we did of saving them.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Say what you will about President Donald J. Trump — his politics, his policies, his business dealings, his personal peccadilloes — the man  demonstrated possession of a heart when he commuted the sentence of grandmother Alice Johnson 21 years into her life term for non-violent drug offenses. He’s asked protesting NFL players to send him a list of people who deserve clemency in lieu of continuing to kneel in protest during the national anthem. It’s encouraging to find mercy among his many and varied qualities.

On July 3, the Libertarian Party’s national convention unanimously requested that President Trump exercise that mercy in the case of Ross William Ulbricht.

In 2015, Ulbricht — better known to the public as “Dread Pirate Roberts” — was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for creating and operating the Silk Road “darknet market” web site.

Please set aside for the moment your opinion of Silk Road — whether or not it was moral, or beneficial, or legal, to operate a web site facilitating the sale and purchase of illegal drugs — and of Ulbricht’s guilt or innocence, to consider the bigger issues.

Ulbricht’s trial was clearly unfair. His defense team was denied access to information on the state’s investigative methodology and not allowed to present an alternative theory as to the identity of “Dread Pirate Roberts.” They were forbidden to reference the fact that at least two of the federal agents investigating Silk Road (who had access which might have allowed them to fabricate evidence) were themselves caught in corrupt activities and are now in prison. The trial was a railroad job from beginning to end.

Ulbricht’s sentence is also clearly unreasonable.  Having poisoned the jury pool with claims of murder-for-hire schemes on Ulbricht’s part, the prosecution then dropped the charges. But the trial judge nonetheless factored those unproven claims into her sentencing.

As of this coming October, Ulbricht will have spent five years behind bars. He’s appealed his conviction and sentence all the way to the US Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case on June 28. At this point, presidential clemency would seem to be his only hope of ever walking free again.

There is no universe in which life without the possibility of parole is a reasonable penalty for the crime of running a web site. Especially a web site which arguably reduced both drug-related street crime and death by drug overdose.

Mr. President: Please set Ross Ulbricht free.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Libertarian Party Urges Trump to Pardon Silk Board Founder Ross Ulbricht,” by Lester Coleman, CCN, 07/10/18

Well, here we go again. On June 27, US Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, effective July 31.

Cue crisis, as defined by President John F. Kennedy’s inaccurate characterization of the Chinese analog: “Two characters, one representing danger and the other, opportunity.” Democrats and Republicans have, for 30 years, alternated between anticipation and fear, depending on which party was in position to choose Kennedy’s successor.

As a “swing vote” — reliably tied to neither party’s policy agenda — since the day he donned the robe in 1988,  there’s never been a convenient time for Kennedy to retire, a time when his retirement wouldn’t have constituted a nuclear bomb dropped smack in the middle of America’s political debate.

That effect is magnified by US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s 2016 decision to hold off on confirming President Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to replace the late Antonin Scalia because there was an election coming soon and he wanted to wait for a new president to choose someone else.

Well, there’s an election coming soon, and suddenly the roles are reversed. Mitch and the Republicans are in a hurry and Democrats are inclined (especially if they can get a little bit of “moderate Republican” help) to drag their feet.

I have a better idea: Cut the Court.

President Trump should announce that he is holding off on appointing a successor for Kennedy and asking Congress to reduce the size of the Court to seven justices, effective with the NEXT retirement. If Congress complies, that next retirement will likely be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 85 and holding on for dear life rather than allow her successor to be chosen by a Republican president.

The size of the Supreme Court is entirely up to Congress. The Constitution prescribes no specific number of justices, and Congress has set the number as low as five (in 1801) and as high as ten (in 1863).

Cutting the Court to seven would be a win for Republicans. Shedding Kennedy and Ginsburg would reduce the Court’s “left” wing by one-and-a-half justices and its “right” wing by only one-half (Kennedy being half fish, half fowl, so to speak), without a bruising confirmation battle right before an election.

Cutting the Court to seven would also be a win for Democrats in that they would avoid the risk of President Trump appointing not only Kennedy’s successor but Ginsburg’s as well (should her health take a turn for the worse or should Trump be re-elected in 2020).

And cutting the Court to seven would give the American public a respite, however brief and partial, from the constant political propaganda about how our voting choices might affect the Court’s future composition. We have other issues to attend to. Cut the Court.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY