Trump’s intervention into a foreign nation’s domestic affairs (Venezuela) raises serious questions for me. Their President, Nicolas Maduro, may well be the drug trafficker that Trump’s minions insist that he is. I have no inside information on that matter. Experts who focus on such things, however, generally state that Venezuela is more of a conduit for illicit drugs, not a major source for U.S. markets.

If so, why pick on this man, on this country? Might it be that Venezualan oil stood out as easy pickings for a voracious authoritarian hoping to use the American Presidency as a vehicle for self-enrichment? Might this be another transparent misdirection ploy to steer the public away from focusing on the Epstein Files? Or perhaps it is the latest step toward establishing full MAGA control over the military? This move might be critical as the far right contemplates maintaining permanent political hegemony through extra-constitutional means. They will need such control over the police, justice, and military apparati if democratic traditions are to be subverted aggressively in the near future.

Take your pick with respect to Trump’s real motivations. The bottom line is that we have taken yet another step toward becoming an authoritarian regime being run by a small oligarchy, or should I say kakistocracy (government by the incompetent). Trump himself has recently declared that he is under no obligation to follow any precepts of international law. His only constraints as President are to be found in his internal moral code. This is scary since he has no ethical vision other than to use his public office to punish enemies, further enrich his family, and remain in office by any means.

Americans generally want to believe that their country is a moral leader in the wotld. They want our leaders, despite flaws and mistakes, to at least try to do the right thing on the international stage. In a recent survey, some 61 percent of respondents affirmed that the country ought to act based on generally understood moral precepts, but only 39 percent believe it is doing so at present … a figure that has declined by over 20 percentage points in recent years. In general, we are no longer proud of our national behavior on the global arena.

When a country abandons its moral center, how should citizens respond? That question emerged with considerable clarity in the Senator Mark Kelly kerfuffle. The Democratic Senator from Arizona had a distinguished career as a Naval Officer and Astronaut before the attempted assassination of his spouse, a member of Congress at the time, pushed him into politics.

Last year, as Trump and his Secretary of War (Peter Hegseth) expanded civilian control over the nation’s military and police forces, Senator Kelly spoke out. He affirmed that anyone who takes an oath to the Constitution is obligated to ignore, or even resist, obeying unlawful orders. The Trump machine immediately responded, branding him a traitor. More recently, they have attempted to punish him by reducing his former military rank and his pension even though their legal standing to do such is shaky at best. These are the actions of a regime seeking total control, not the behavior of a Republic functioning within Constitutional limits and well established legal principles.

I was reminded of all this when I ran across the story of one Georg Duckwitz, a German diplomat stationed in Copenhagen during WWII. We have all heard of other individuals who acted with courage and integrity during the insanity of the Nazi holocaust.

Some of these names are quite familiar to us. Raoul Wallenberg was a Swedish diplomat assigned to Budapest during the war. He saved many Jews by issuing false passports and then hiding them in locations he deemed to be Swedish territory. Raoul paid for his heroism by disappearing into a Soviet prison after the war.

And there was (Sir) Nicolas Winton, a British businessman who, on vacation, came across the reality of Jewish persecution in Prague in the months before the outbreak of war. He set up a makeshift office and, through his own energy and connections, managed to save the lives of about 700 Jewish children simply because it was the right thing to do. His humanitarian work ended on September 1, 1939, when Germany attacked Poland. Sadly, his most recent train taking endangered children to freedom was intercepted on that very day; all subsequently lost their lives. He never spoke of his work until his wife stumbled across a notebook he had hidden away for almost four decades.

Oscar Schindler is a name we all know from the iconic movie, Schindler’s List. Oscar was not an official part of the Nazi war machine. He was primarily a war profiteer who also responded to suffering with profound human sensitivity. His story is well known through the Steven Spielberg movie documenting his exploits. Like the others, he also took enormous risks to save vulnerable lives in the midst of unreasoned insanity.

Georg Duckwitz was different in one important way. He was an actual government official functioning within the regime. He was a member of the Nazi government that had occupied Denmark during the war. It was his duty to follow orders. Still, when he was ordered to do something that he believed contradicted his moral code, he had an existential decision to make. In this instance, he chose the dictates of his conscience over the dictates of his official office.

As he sat in his Copenhagen office in 1942, he got word from Berlin that he should facilitate the rounding up of all remaining Jewish families in Denmark for transportation to concentration camps. He knew what that meant. He had a decision to make.

Georg immediately negotiated with Swedish officials to accept over 7,000 refugees. It was a request fraught with unknown consequences but they agreed. Then he contacted a Danish politician he thought might be sympathetic. Spread the word, he insisted, all Jewish families must leave immediately.

The word spread quietly and quickly from family to family. The clock was running out. At the same time, he and others rounded up scores of fishermen and others who waited on the coast to ferry these panicked families to safety in Sweden. They did so, not out of obligation or compensation, but also because it was the right thing to do. A day or so later, when the Gestapo and other military forces raided Jewish homes, they were astonished to find them empty. The anticipated victims were gone. Thousands had been saved because one man of conscience refused to follow orders.

This made a mockery of those Nazis who, during the 2046 Nuremberg trials, argued that they were innocent because they were just following orders. Such is the choice many of us may be required to make if America continues to slide into totalitarian rule. What will you do when required to support or facilitate actions you find unacceptable? Where would you draw your line in the sand? Senator Kelly merely confirmed a principle that already had long been enshrined in the Uniform Military Code of Justice. No one should obey an illegal order. Yet, the administration is hell-bent on making him pay a price.

Most of us, of course, are not in the military, or even ex-military. But the question remains. How should we act if we see ICE personnel acting as if they are contemporary versions of Gestapo agents? What do we do if the regime in Washington usurps ever more power while overtly dismantling Constitutional protections? Do we merely turn away? Or do we take a stand for what we believe is right?

I know what I would like to do. On the other hand, whether I possess the courage to do the right thing is unknowable to me. I do know one thing, however. The solicitations I get from right wing sources oft start with the salutation… Dear Patriot.

That makes me cringe. For them, patriotism is obedience. Leadership is something never to be questioned. That line of reasoning did not work in 1946 during the Nuremberg trial of Nazi war criminals. It should not work after the memory of Trump has been erased from our memories.