Yep. This just out from the British Monarch in response to questions for clarification on her legal authority (satire – see NOTE below). The limitation: This may only occur if Mr. Trump sets foot on UK soil. The refinement: Only she may do it, and no one may interfere.

WOW.

Depending on where you tend to find your emotions relative to the early days of Mr. Trump’s administration, this news may horrify or delight.

But once the surge of impulsive feeling subsides, it seems wise to step back and make certain you’re aware of the game in play. While this is no doubt an amazing fact, check out the context.

Few would deny there is huge division in our country with regard to the recent Presidential election and the unfolding of governance since the 45^th President was inaugurated. The content of this division is not really new. Some citizens believe the country is best governed with the eye of business, others believe governance should be driven by the needs of citizens. We’ve been at this since Jefferson, the first Secretary of State, and Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury debated agrarian populism vs. commercially informed federal authority. In response to what he saw as hostility and egotism winning over intelligent political collaboration, President Washington warned of, “formal and permanent despotism … sharpened by the spirit of revenge.”

There you have it. The game space still in operation. The arena into which, if the game is to remain alive, all must enter rigidly on one side or the other. In an intractable opposition which can only thrive with the goal of defeating the opponent – the goal of dominance.

For example, if you don’t approve of someone, legislate that your monarch may kill that person with a sword.

Or ban them by category with an edict or with a wall.

Or, even un-friend them on Facebook with fanfare and righteousness.

To participate in violence at any level, even with silence, is to fuel the violence. Acting outside the opposition can take massive courage.

Quite certainly, there are times self-preservation takes precedence over refraining from destructive action or complete silence. The question to answer first is, am I doing this to save my life or someone else’s or am I doing this to be right and superior.

Subtle or not, this is the exacting question, the answer to which determines whether any act contributes to solution or to destruction. And the answer is always difficult to discern. Mistakes are certain. It takes great attention and practice to recognize fully that for solution to be real and enduring, it must rest on dissolution of all belief in the merits of opposition and separation.

Once again, do check this out for yourself. I must check over and over because of how deeply I caught the defend-a-righteous-position gene.

Along the way, and if this reads like Pollyanna fufu, well .. beware. Check to see if your inner George Washington is warning you against a fall (again) into despotism – inside and out. Check if, at the same time, your inner monarch finds her antiquated authority humorously poignant in the face of current events. And note that she is able to hold it alongside the actually superior power not to participate in the destruction.

FACT CHECK NOTE: A fact check through Snopes indicates the QE2 sword-weilding authority is all hooey. Published in The Daily Mash which makes clear, “The Daily Mash is a satirical website which publishes spoof articles, i.e. it is all made-up and is not intended, in any way whatsoever, to be taken as factual. Glad we’ve got that sorted.” The discussion here remains desperately relevant, however. Thanks for giving it some thought. mmc