Such as it is, the zenith of western civilization that we live in – air conditioning, the internet, medicine, entertainment, the lack of predators hunting us when we leave our homes, and the ability to watch war and death from afar from the comfort of our phones, all unlike the past when our worries were more and greater – was given to us by great men and women from those that came before. Civil “Rights,” as they are, are granted to us by our constitution, which was established, and granted by great men after great sacrifice.

During the American Revolutionary War, Great Britain likely tried to sway our great men with money and ranks and titles, but they chose a better future for others, rather than a better and ‘immediate’ future for themselves.

More than two thousand years ago, at the true beginning of the ideals that marked the founding of our civilization, “the West," the ancient Greeks came up with a proverb:

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

 How many people would trade more money, as opposed to making the future better, a future they shall never see? Perhaps the root of the question more acutely and importantly: how many people would trade immediate stability for future stability?

Not explicitly cash, but ‘more money’ is a simpler, if less accurate representation of the idea. More cash gives a person more immediate control and stability of that which is directly and presently around them, at the cost of whatever future change that ‘cash’ could have been directed at.

Thus, it is posed:

“How many would trade immediate stability of one's life (or favored change to the status quo), for future stability – future stability they shall never see?”

 Much attention to what is important may be lost when life gets difficult; politicians thus capitalize on your exhaustion. We would not be a civilization without them, however, though it would be nice to be able to turn them over a knee for particularly stupid actions committed while in office.

In the Federalist Papers in 1788, Alexander Hamilton argued that a president needed to be able to act quickly, and strongly for the sake of the prosperity of a country without worrying about being sued or thrown in prison after his time expired. Thus, was born (not by name, but idea) the concept of “implied presidential immunity.” The concept evolved slowly and gradually over time to be “actual presidential immunity," beginning in 1867 when the Supreme Court ruled that President Johnson could not be sued for any action done in an official capacity. In 1896, this grew more broadly in the Supreme Court case Spalding v. Vilas granted immunity to executive officials who did things that were “more or less" in the scope of their duties. Further cases continued to grant more and more protections to the President: Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Clinton v. Jones, and most recently, Trump v. The United States.

 In his particular case, it was ruled that sitting Presidents have absolute immunity for official acts within their core constitutional authority and presumptive immunity for other official acts.

Conservatives celebrated the Supreme Court ruling as, dare I say, Trump then ‘ascended’ to the office? – But what is an immediate gain for conservatives is only going to cause them (and the future American generations) trouble down the road.

President Trump has four years to complete his agenda with even more protections than presidents of the past (the difference between “presumptive immunity for ‘other official acts’ ” and ‘unofficial acts’ seems like the perfect wiggle room for a good lawyer to argue semantics). While firing presupposed “DEI hires,” from the military and other efforts to “restructure government bureaucracy among other conservative aims, it may seem to a conservative like they are gaining much in the way of what they perceive as progress.

It also seems then, that conservatives have lost sight of the long game and the future. Indeed, immediate change can affect the future, but so does extra power granted to the next guy in office, who, if he or she is of a liberal mindset, could, and will likely, undo the things that President Trump is doing and has done. Thus, no progress will be made, and instead, a great swath of instability is added to our civilization.

Such is the logic that has kept the Supreme Court remaining the size it is: if the ruling party adds more Justices to the bench, then the next guy will toss on his appointees to stack it in his or her favor. 

The continued and stacking Presidential Immunity (which is usually a short-term benefit that could be being used in effect to prevent present civil instability) and lack of any sort of consequence for the Executive offices means that the next guy in the role can do what he wants to also.

This isn’t an essay to say anything he did or didn’t do is inherently evil or good but is a reflection that more powers granted to the Executive Branch is contradictory to a stable future. For those short-term, impunitive conservative “gains” made by President Trump, any overreach or criminal acts are also things that can be used by the next person. 

Thus, as it was posed above:

“How many would trade immediate stability of one's life (or favored change to the status quo), for future stability – future stability they shall never see?”

The introduction of the Greek proverb, "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in," is an accusation that what is happening now is hasty, and the newest, heaviest layer of presidential immunity (lack of meaningful consequence) is the opposite of “planting trees for future generations to enjoy."

Instead of a top-down approach to changing the world around us by adding powers to the executive branch (which is immediate, which can also swing like a pendulum to the other side), conservatives should have focused on protecting liberties granted by the Constitution (see: deporting U.S. Citizens, no due process).

The shade from the trees that the old men should plant, that they will never see, is some as follows: endeavoring to build up safer, closer communities. To, as the great Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius said, “that paying deep for a good education and tutors is something that cannot be understated,” so our schools should be overhauled and our instructors paid well and handsomely. That the opposite should happen with those in power: they should fear (somewhat!) overstepping.

And the actions that are taken when one political party or person is in control should be reckoned with what opposite effects will descend on the future generations. Just as you enjoyed clean air and whatever joys in life you could attain, so do children.

This is  America, we need no kings – just good men, who plant trees for the future of their children, of which they cannot visit.

Austin Petak is an aspiring novelist and freelance journalist who loves seeking stories and the quiet passions of the soul. If you are interested in reaching out to him to cover a story, you may find him at austinpetak@gmail.com.

Opinions expressed by columnists in The Daily Record are not necessarily those of its management or staff, and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. Any errors or omissions should be called to our attention so that they may be corrected. Contact us at news@omahadailyrecord.com.