Featured

Nonprofit Organizations and Digital Assets, Beginning with Stablecoins

In July of 2025, the U.S. Congress enacted a law titled: “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act” (commonly referred to as “the GENIUS Act”). This law would permit the issuance of a form of digital asset known as a “payment stablecoin” that would be used only for purposes of payment or settlement and not investment. Among various entities, payment stablecoins maybe issued by depository institutions but are not federally insured. Rather, they are supported by the requirement that every payment stablecoin issuer maintain a reserve fund of equal value to its outstanding payment stablecoins in U.S. dollars or items of a similar form.

In the course of implementing the GENIUS Act, the U.S. Department of the Treasury requested comments from the general public with respect to future regulation. The memorandum below was submitted in response.

From: Lori G. Nuckolls, Public Policy Researcher and Writer, Philosophy, Law and Politics (lorigaylenuckolls.blog)

To: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Attention: Office of the General Counsel, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220, Via Electronic Submission: https://www.regulations.gov

Re: GENIUS Act Implementation Comments, TREAS-DO-2025-0037, 90 Fed. Reg. 45159-45163 (Sept. 19, 2025), 90 Fed. Reg. 47251 (Oct. 1, 2025) (Submission date extension)

Date: November 1, 2025

I. Introduction

The GENIUS Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5901-5916 (2025), was enacted with the legislative purpose of providing legal guidance and regulation in the use of stablecoins as a digital asset. A statutorily created “payment stablecoin,” denominated in U.S. Dollars, would be issued by legally approved entities and would allow entrance into the digital marketplace in a safe and sound manner. 90 Fed. Reg. 45159 (Sept. 19, 2025). In regulating the issuance of payment stablecoins by subsidiaries of depository institutions, specifically nonprofit depository institutions such as credit unions, the U.S. Department of the Treasury should consider regulations that support and permit as well require the nonprofit organizations to honor their asserted charitable mission and purpose. With respect to the credit union, this would be pursuance of its historical mission and purpose of enabling its governing members to obtain access to historically unavailable financial services, develop financial literacy, and transition into a competitive socio-economic environment premised upon self-government and self-sustainability. Credit unions which have already successfully entered the heretofore unregulated digital asset marketplace offer extensive and direct training to leaders, staff, and members to avoid financial loss. Participation of credit unions, large and small, in a well-regulated digital asset marketplace would facilitate the long-sought self-government and financial growth of members.

The Department of the Treasury should consider that nonprofit financial institutions bear a higher ethical standard than do for-profit entities. Their existence depends upon their reputation within the communities they serve and the absence of their engaging in intense competition with their peers. Credit unions rely upon the trust they engender in society, not to mention donors, volunteers and members. In governing the payment stablecoin activities of all nonprofits, including credit unions, regulators should premise requirements upon the principle that the trust engendered by the conduct of the nonprofit organization is based upon not only the appearance of propriety but also upon the absence of even the appearance of impropriety.

As a consequence, regulation could guide nonprofit organizations in achieving balance between engaging in authorized emerging digital assets and guaranteeing the financial stability of the communities served. Whereas, unleashing digital assets in a scarcely regulated environment to enable the efficiency, directness and globalization emerging digital technologies provide, would be an example of dialectical creative destruction. And, this achievement of positive development while permitting a threshold level of hardship is to be mitigated in the regulatory process. Specifically, in the historically financially fragile communities of the credit union, little is achieved by regulation allowing entrance into the digital asset marketplace if the burden of greater risk is endured by the financial communities most in need. Thus, questions arise as to how regulation of the nonprofit organization is to be structured in theory and practice.

II. Credit Union Subsidiary Issuers of Payment Stablecoins: a Theory of Regulation to Avoid the Creative Destruction Dialectic

The GENIUS Act currently provides that all issuers of payment stablecoins, state and federal, are required to meet federal standards. 12 U.S.C. § 5903(c) (2025). In regulating nonprofit organizations and, guiding regulation by the National Credit Union Administration of credit unions and the distinct communities they serve, perhaps the Department of the Treasury could consider the theoretical doctrine of the “veil of ignorance” established by American philosopher John Rawls. In the veil of ignorance, Rawls suggests that society place itself in the “original position” in which each individual in society envisions oneself to not know one’s specific place in society. (Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)).

In this case, the principles of the veil of ignorance guide governing leaders and citizens in reaching agreement as to public policy, law and regulation. Choices in law would be determined by a general understanding as to what being a citizen should mean. Commonality of thought would arise from leaders and the public alike perceiving themselves guided by the veil of ignorance under which they reach decisions and enact laws without consideration of their own personal circumstance and condition. Rather, each person deems their position to be that of those most vulnerable and in need. And, in turn, they seek a legal structure most capable of providing a just and fair society.

Specifically, the Department of the Treasury would identify with credit union staff and members most benefiting from the financial services and training provided and least familiar with emerging digital asset technologies. Safe harbor regulations for credit unions and other nonprofit organizations would guide the ambitious and encourage the wary ones unfamiliar with the digital asset marketplace. For, both are truly outnumbered by for-profit entities. In doing so, credit union regulation, in particular, would allow financial growth through the creative use of digital assets while maintaining a safety net for the credit union governed by members most in need of financial literacy and growth.

The GENIUS Act and its framework for the issuance of payment stablecoins as a creature of statute is a blank slate. It enables the beginning of a new economy premised upon regulation in the John Rawls original position, derived from the veil of ignorance. For example, both regulators and credit unions, including their issuer subsidiaries, would envision themselves in the position of a credit union with truly dependent members situated in a community of similar prospective members increasing in number. To continue in existence, this credit union and its members must be knowledgeable of market development, namely the advent of digital assets. In this position, Treasury would govern with reference to legal standards that would enable an understanding of rights, powers, and privileges, as well as the risks they engender. From this new beginning, credit unions would be able to implement risk assessment policies allowing the balancing of legally authorized conduct against the forbearance of some legally permitted activity in order to maintain trust and goodwill within the community. For, credit unions might not need to be as ambitious and as competitive as the GENIUS Act possibly allows.

III. Conclusion

With the GENIUS Act as a beginning, Congress and the administrative agencies may readily provide financial regulation of all nonprofit organizations as they enter every aspect of the digital asset marketplace. In guiding this transition, the law should promote new strategies of growth and risk management as to digital assets as it has historically with respect to more traditional financial markets.

Is There A Panacea For The Masses?

World history contains reference to the many forms of communication shared. The lyre player, knight, storyteller, dramatic troupe, athletic league, not to mention pamphleteer and more. All impart a unique view of current events. The number and diversity in these forms ensure that there is access to information.

The question arises: how should these various forms of communication be governed? We ask what is the proper purpose of the regulation? And, how extensive should this regulation be?

The extent of regulation should depend upon the purpose of the information. Is it intended as a panacea, a manipulation. Or, does it reflect the obligation of certain nongovernmental institutions to provide sufficient information for the public to maintain its representative democracy.

To review and decide upon rules governing our information, both leaders and the public must define the concept of manipulative panacea. Is the purpose of the information moral, legal and rational? All regulations should place a duty to safeguard the public from communication that improperly influences and deludes more than informs.

Improper influence and delusion is often imperceptible. Thus upon whom is the burden to decide whether something constitutes honest information, regardless of whether in the form of musical performance, drama, athletics, printed material or other forms of communication?

In the thinking of some we do not begin as we become. We are formed and develop as we learn, absorb and reflect. This we do individually and collectively as we communicate. Perhaps purpose and intent and not content should govern our expressions of community.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

When Was There Last Enforcement Of The American Identity?

Why is there a declining sense of community in America? Less active participation in one’s neighborhood, religious organization and charities is occurring. Could this be a result of an increasing awareness of the current American social identity and our failing to achieve or actualize our identity as described by the literal wording in our time honored governing documents: the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, enforcing statutes and interpreting judicial opinions. Many blame the atomization of society upon social media and Artificial Intelligence. But, perhaps, popular resort to an obsession with the arts of new technology is a remedy of this absence of human connectedness and not the cause.

There are some attributes of personhood in America that require public discussion and enforcement by the law. For, without enforcement, trust in American society and government ceases to exist. Many of these laws in want of enforcement involve social conduct and behavior that are prerequisite to the rights and liberties of American law. This is not a reference to the future recognition of new rights and liberties, though there probably will be some new ones overtime, but, instead, a focus upon the long ago designated crimes that undermine democratic American society: incest, truancy and illegal immigration.

Enforcement is necessary because American democracy is premised upon the sanctity of the individual as each person obtains learning and an understanding sufficient to engage in self-determination and self-government. Incest is prohibited owing to the scientific rationale that children produced from such relationships often suffer from genetic impairment and the social rationale that the relationships often result from abuse and exploitation creating a sense of shame and inferiority.

School attendance is a fundamental requirement for citizens to be able to function and participate as active members of the voting public. This includes an adequate skill level in an arts and sciences curriculum, with vocational training available. And, as a nation of immigrants, America demands the absence of the abuse and exploitation of those seeking liberty from oppression in other lands. Without a path to legal residency they lead a life of illegal employment, want of civic involvement and nonexistence of social integration.

There are newly recognized civil rights and liberties in the modern era: integrated schooling (1954), contraception (1965), integrated relationships (1967) abortion (1973) and same-sex marriage (2015). However, the theories and rationales underlying prohibitions against incest, truancy and illegal immigration support the emergence of the person upon which the foregoing more recently acknowledged rights and liberties exist as an expression. Without the attributes resulting from the absence of incest, truancy and illegal immigration, one may not partake in fair schools, private relationships and self-governance.

We must look to the very foundation of America, below our officials in all aspects of government to the concept of the Rawlsian “original position” in which each one of us imagines that we do not know our place in society. From this position, we conceive of what our world should be. We must begin again to establish our society and government from its description in our essential documents. Enforcement is necessary according to modern terms for a modern era. And, individual existence in such a society requires a viable economic structure of single income livelihoods and feasible higher education tuition. For, even the cost of a public college or university education is beyond the ability of most parental incomes as well as the incomes of most graduates who rely upon student loan financing.

Ongoing progress and development has and will improve law enforcement as it has given rise to the emergence of new rights and privileges, such as scientific advancements in contraception, abortion and in vitro fertilization, which have resulted in newfound debates over the meaning of life. Similarly, incest prohibitions may be reformed with scientific developments in the field of genetics.

Currently, we must ask both government and ourselves as members of the public to look to the connection between our pervasive social ills and the absence of the enforcement of century old legal restrictions. Eliminating duplicity and inefficiency will only make our true society and government more visible and render more feasible achievement of the American dream.

Featured

Is There A Universal Morality?

In our world, we individually experience rites of passage and achieve a meeting of the minds, a collective understanding that a development has taken place. Our understanding is based on knowledge of facts and ideas acquired from both mental and sensory views of life. Even according to the 1901 publication of a noteworthy, yet controversial, Continental Philosopher:

To the extent to which knowledge has any sense at all, the world is knowable: but it may be interpreted differently, it has not one sense behind it, but hundreds of senses…

Consequently, we should defer to our collective appreciation of reality and the law that governs our existence.

We may disagree, one with another, about the law and our governing leaders. If so, we must look to the role in politics and society that law and government permit us. To change law and or society, we may only participate in the specific manner we are allowed. Participation begins with the act of daily self-governance. In doing so, we will together understand and change our lives and world.

In America, we made certain promises at its founding which we are achieving gradually through many transitions in society and government. Ultimately, we seek to create a country of equal opportunity in a popular melting pot of free choice. Ideally, our schools, churches, clubs and places of employment will permit unfettered access and participation in a meritocratically ruled government and society.

In thinking of the recent transition in the American Presidency, we should evaluate governing leaders and the policies they propose by the same standards with which we govern ourselves. In no way may we hold them accountable to standards higher than our own.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

The Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission of Ohio Issue 1, November of 2024

How do we evaluate the fairness of proposed reforms? Historically, we see ourselves anew and think empathetically that we are in the place of those whose condition is being remedied.

The Ohio Issue 1 Citizens Redistricting Commission creates a different method of redistricting Ohio for the purpose of General Assembly and Congressional elections. Issue 1 removes the persons currently empowered to serve as the Ohio Redistricting Commission by the Ohio Constitution: the Governor, Auditor of State, Secretary of State, an appointee of the House Speaker, an appointee of the House Minority Leader, an appointee of the Senate President, and an appointee of the Senate Minority Leader. In their place, Issue 1 would name 15 Ohio citizens who: (1) are not elective or appointive officials and (2) in the previous six years, have not: (a) held elective or appointive office in Ohio; (b) been a candidate for elective office in Ohio; (c) been an officer, paid consultant, or contractor to a political party, political action campaign, or campaign committee; (d) been a staff member, paid consultant, or contractor for an elected official or candidate; or (e) been a registered lobbyist or legislative agent with the State of Ohio or the federal government. These disqualifications apply to the immediate family members of the citizen commissioners as well. Citizen commissioners will represent the two largest political parties and independent voters based upon their previous primary ballot selections.

The citizen commissioners must not, in general, possess interests that conflict with the redistricting process. For, they are prohibited from holding elective or appointive office in Ohio for the six years following certification of their commission ‘s redistricting plan.

The redistricting plan of the Citizens Commission is subject to judicial review and must comply with the U.S. Constitution and applicable federal law, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The proposed redistricting method of Issue 1 is, thus, accountable to the judiciary and constitutional principles of due process and equal protection of the law. Court action is a more speedy path to justice and fairness than would be awaiting the next feasible popular ballot approval of General Assembly elective officials or the redistricting plan itself. And, the citizen commissioners are selected by a panel of retired judges. Former judges often are active in the practice of law and subject to professional rules prohibiting even the appearance of impropriety in their conduct, no less actual conflicts of interest.

When we seek to begin a new governmental structure, we should consider our personal situation. If we were potential candidates without knowledge of our political party affiliation or socio-economic status, would we deem the proposed Citizen Commission fair and just in its consideration of districts for candidates? This view is that of American philosopher John Rawls in his theory of the “veil of ignorance.” For Rawls, we at no time know our future, what our social and political standing will be. Consequently, we seek governmental reform that assures equal government. In evaluating Ohio Issue 1, and all redistricting proposals, including that currently in place, we should envision that we are both the voter and the candidate whose district is to be drawn.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Must Women of Color Endure Destruction to Succeed?

In the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel, society develops and history unfolds in a difficult and inconsistent manner. Specifically: an event occurs; the event encounters a negative reaction; and in the end progress results from the combination of the two. This is termed the Hegelian dialectic. We ask with respect to the world history of women of color whether and why their gradual social progress has endured such a step forward, step backward process to development?

Access to training and education in all occupations and professions is necessary to permit women of color to support themselves and their families. This training and education has become more available historically yet not without hardships such as inadequate preparation, inadequate funding and inadequate networking post-graduation. The negative reaction to the positive step of access to training and education is cyclical. Without adequate education, participation in society and government is not possible to an extent that equality may be pursued legally, socially and economically. Any subsequent advancement through legal reform is minor in comparison to that accorded the pyramidal strata above women of color who inhabit the bottom stratum, socioeconomically and emotionally.

In America, it has been legally affirmed that racially segregated institutions are improper. They instill a cultural distance, an inability to participate and a sense of inferiority. Yet, social segregation remains in schools, the workplace and social organizations. In religious organizations and social clubs, more appear segregated than not, ostensibly voluntarily. The stigma of racial segregation is upon women of color most of all.

Worldwide, overtime, reforms in laws, customs, and social institutions have occurred and as a result socioeconomic strata blend, academic achievement improves and women of color have achieved a greater sense of participation in society. However, with these positive developments, in the thought of Hegel, negative reactions occur before the positive are again experienced.

True reform should be unilateral with no reverses. Solutions abound as to how the Hegelian negative reaction may be avoided. For instance, America should look beyond the disparateness of its two political parties, a duopoly of two political parties which together dominate elected offices. It is the fact that women of color are elected to government offices more than in the past. And, this is a beginning.

However, in the social sphere segregation remains and the two major American political parties have not addressed this dilemma. For example, the topic of the American Black church is longstanding. Churches should become racially integrated. Integration in religion is a subject the two political parties should discuss as one of cultural and social importance. Party members should express their belief in the significance of integration in religious organizations by both welcoming those of another race into their church and by expressing interest in churches with congregations of another race. Members of integrated churches should be recruited to run for office.

Individually, worldwide, we should expand our own frontiers and explore religious organizations of races other than our own. Religious entities of one race my merge with one of another. In the words of Hegel: “Reason governs the world” through “religious truth” well- known to us. Religion through reason can guide us in social development without corresponding hardship.

Humanity relies upon religious entities and various additional nongovernmental organizations to remedy injustice and lead in suggesting reforms. Many religions guide society in improving its customs, laws and morality. On the subject of the lives of women of color, religion should provide support for social advances and improvements and assist to mitigate Hegelian reverses. For none of us should life be akin to the rise of Jim Crow in response to newfound freedom.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Does Catholicism Support Fascism in America?

As a representative democracy, the United States relies upon a sovereign citizenry of self-governing individuals who place government and country first and foremost. Before the world is debate on the subject of how society and government should be structured. Should religious thought be a source of law and government? Should education be free and fairly available? How should labor be organized and employed and what should be its source: a bountiful citizenry and a boundless immigration?

At this the time of the celebration of America’s Declaration of Independence, the Fourth of July, one looks to the origin of the government in the Protestant religion. Yet, from its beginning the nation prided itself upon the legal right of all to practice the religion of choice upon its soil. However, the question arises of whether America depends upon the tenets of the Protestant faith, one of which is the belief in self-governing congregations.

Catholicism in America is of a longstanding tradition. Its practitioners have faced discrimination and hardship. They defer to a worldwide authority. Does the Catholic faith contradict the democratic principles of a representative government, an individual’s right to self-govern and the existence of a unilaterally sovereign populace? Is it proper for working Americans to be anesthetized by a worldwide church that stands in contradiction to individual nations? Should all individuals live under a government similar to America’s, one that provides both democracy and a safe and sound work environment with an opportunity to practice a faith of choice?

Forcing a public to look to religion instead of to law for employment security is to deny law to all. In the guise of religion, some Americans defer to the Vatican as a means of surviving under the American government. For some, the American government becomes like a fascist society where the leader of their faith is their sole authority. They are then living under a combination of religious principles, American law enforcement and a central worldwide authority. This is the beginning of fascism in America.

In solving this dilemma, Americans might individually look to their government, from top to bottom and bottom to top. Ensure that America abides the rule of law and that laws are duly reformed and enforced. Fairness and justice in America permit a capitalist society of honest competition and safety and soundness. Free and adequate education from private and public funding of tuition rather than from student debt is possible. The United States was founded upon the principle and theory of a natural aristocracy. Let’s found one.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Science and the Right to Abortion

Judicial review in the United States serves a fundamental purpose in American government, it permits the courts to ensure that the acts of the other two branches of government, the legislative and executive, abide the Constitution. In doing so it enables the sovereign citizenry to create a legitimate representative government. As American society develops it changes its views of the nation and the world and, as a result, the laws by which it lives. Over time, the views of its judges as seen in their legal opinions also change.

One must remark that political opinions in the United States have been modified extensively to the extent that the public has completely changed its mind on many important life defining issues. As a result, certain laws and legal opinions contradict preexisting ones. For example, the legality of racial segregation became the right to racial, integration. The illegality of contraception became the right to birth control. The illegality of racial miscegenation became the right to interracial marriage. The illegality of abortion became a legal right to private abortion. The illegality of sodomy became the right to homosexual relationships. The illegality of homosexual marriage became the right to same-sex marriage.These changes in American law occur concurrently with noteworthy developments in social customs, science and technology that render the population able to envision present society in a new manner. Some regard these legal developments as not occurring with sufficiency to be adequate or just.

With respect to the legal recognition of a right to abortion by the judiciary in 1973, many social and scientific developments have taken place prompting judicial restrictions upon this right in 2022. In example, in vitro fertilization is a very common practice. As a result, issues before society are when a right to life begins and whether one’s power to create this life is accompanied by a power to destroy it. Contemporary opinions also include those arising from whether there is a governmental power of capital punishment or a private right to assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

American society must address the legal question of what constitutes life and what are its attributes. Could the concept of in vitro fertilization include a right to property? In discussing abortion, America must reconcile its power to begin and end life with newfound scientific developments.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

On Voting, What Did The Founders Say?

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 59, acknowledged in Article I, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution that the authority to determine the times, places and manner of elections resided with the state legislatures, yet Congress also possessed the power to alter state election law. According to Hamilton, this ultimate authority over state election law could be exercised by the federal government “whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety.” The reason for placing the initial power in the states was not the traditional rational of promoting valid experimentation to encourage developments in both state and federal law. Rather, as noted by constitutional law scholar Joseph Story in 1833 in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, there was a concern that Congress, or a few Congresspersons from dominant states, might use the ultimate power of the federal government to enact unreasonable federal election laws favoring certain persons.

According to Hamilton and Story, the theory underlying the division of power is the necessity that every government possess its own mode of preservation. State and local governments are diverse, diffuse and can result in experimental, regulatable and accountable methods of election. However, Article I, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution expressly grants the power of preservation of the Union to the federal government. Story called this a “superintending power” over state election law.

We must ask if the incident of January 6^th in the United States with the storming of the U.S. Capitol Building indicates such an extraordinary circumstance. Is a return to Jim Crow such a circumstance? In Hamilton’s opinion, elections are left to “local administrations … in the ordinary cases, and when no improper views prevail ….” The United States has recently experienced uprisings and protests by persons of all races, colors, creeds, nationalities, religions and sexual orientations. Is there a need for election laws that would guarantee equality of representation with uniform voter qualifications throughout the Union?

The balance of power between the states and federal government need not be wholly undone by a constitutional amendment. Rather, we should place first the principle of the preservation of fair, equitable, just and honest government. Discretionary power over elections may be abused wherever it resides. And, historically, it has been abused at both the state and federal levels. Once, rivalry and ambition among the states justified the power of state election law. Now, national and international commerce support national standards of elections and the inclusion of all eligible voters in the election process.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Is the United States of America under Siege?

Following the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, in the ordinary course of legislative business, one must ask the place of this event in history. To what does it give rise, where does it lead America, and what does it indicate for its citizenry?

One could argue that there is too much hostility within the American majority, too much dissension, for America to continue with a republican form of government, for the United States Constitution to remain. A democratic military relies upon patriotism and a caring respect for government. Its military is derived from the majority population. If the majority no longer believes in justice and freedom under the U.S. Constitution, the military will not possess the moral force to protect the government from threats both at home and abroad.

The storming of the American Capitol was a rebellion, a failed revolution. The cause cannot be deemed that of madness or irrationality. Rather, it must be acknowledged to be an expression of a competing ideology. For, regardless of the methodology of the acts of violence against a government, such acts embody and express an ideology.

Consequently, diplomacy is required to reach agreement and compromise, to heal a country and the world. Denial of the existence of the beliefs and positions of the rebelling entity begets further uprisings and intermittent rebellion. An inclusive truce is necessary. Moreover, in the world’s history, uprisings, rebellions and revolutions, including the American Revolution, have long been subjected to the ad hominem of madness and irrationality, without their being evidence of proof other than reference to acts embodying a competing ideology.

Why Did the Attempted Revolution Occur?

Throughout the world’s existence, history’s development and progress has exhibited great hardship and horror. The storming of the American Capitol could be an example of the development of the world by means of such hardship and horror. Many deem this to be development through the reason and spirit in history, the Hegelian dialectic. According to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in the world there is the existence of the status quo; the critique or destruction of the status quo; and then the collective synthesis of a new, positive result in history. One would attribute to this phenomenon, the slow but developing and evolving state of human progress.

In some sense, Hegel deemed this the actualization of the known and preexisting universe and cosmos by the spirit of history. Yet, those living in each intermittent era of unknowing naivete ask why the negative, destructive critique of the status quo is necessary to evolve and develop, regardless of the result produced. Does it have to do with human nature and the mind of man? Does reasoned critique possess limits necessitating a reliance upon negative destruction? If a destructive negation is not necessary, perhaps society should strive to divert destructive animosity toward reasoned discussion.

In the thought of Hegel, we ask what is the positive result of the negative undoing and destruction of the U.S. Capitol. Does the storming indicate that, in addition to criminal penalties, some form of political reform will or should result? Could the rebellion give rise to either the creation of third and or fourth political parties, or a parliamentary form of government?

If third parties are cultivated, ideology through rebellion could express itself lawfully in the form of party platforms and representatives in elected office. If transition into a parliamentarian form of government, the United States would no longer rely upon a separately elected executive with a greater concentration of power in the form of a right of veto over the legislative body. Parliamentary government would require a significant reform of American government. Yet, rebellion and attempted revolution are significant acts.

There must be a humane and positive response by government and society to the rebellion, regardless of what one believes to be its cause. Rebels seek an answer to their demands. They seek their definition of justice. We cannot loft above them an ideal, utopian definition of justice which has been long deemed beyond reach by the world’s greatest elected officials, academics and philosophers. We must seek and strive toward a viable definition of justice: the right of all people to political participation through peaceful expression.

If America abided the principles and text of the Constitution, specifically, and rule of law, generally, differences and disagreements would be settled in the context of traditional political debate and law making. The United States must maintain the quality of its existence as a representative democracy governed by a natural aristocracy. It must act according to law and include the concerns and needs of all within the course of day-to-day debate. Ignoring any segment of the public results in an emotional response such as rebellion. Providing justice to all will avoid such in the future.

America should not attempt to avoid Hegelian peaceful critiques of the status quo, for debate and critique are the basis of the American political system. But, Americans must channel critique within structural modes of expression. From the ordinary member of the public to those occupying the highest office in the land, political participation and the ability to self-govern combine to avoid the recent cathartic event witnessed in the storming of the American Capitol. For, no rebellion or revolt takes form in short order. No one person could be responsible for persuading so many to act against their country. Revolt and rebellion result from a long felt disheartening of many people with their country. The only remedy is to provide a sense of enfranchisement and receptive, meritocratic government.

As J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur stated: from soil values grow. American democracy is premised upon the dignity of the individual and respect for all. A storming of the bastion of the people’s government indicates that an overwhelming number of citizens require that government be restructured to meet their needs. The United States needs to bring democracy closer to the soil of America.

Third Parties May Be an Answer to America’s Current Debate

Third parties are often factions that leave major parties over certain issues. America must discern the grievances possessed by America’s rebels. They ostensibly are supporters of former President Donald Trump. However, such violence coalesces and surrounds more than one person. It evolves over time and involves a plentitude of issues. The Capitol revolt was not the temperance party, the women’s suffrage movement or Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party. These ideological expressions were serious and longstanding. Yet, they did not reach the level of violence as the recent storming of the American Capitol. Consequently, the deep seated, violence inducing concerns and grievances of the Capitol rebels rely on more than what might be offered by one person. For, in expressing their grievances, they sought to destroy the very government former President Trump represents.

Permanent realignment of the two major political parties in America into third parties may require some phenomenon such as a rebellion or near revolution. Broad based, grassroot rebellion expressed in the form of movements such as the Capitol rebels could coalesce to form a third party. Some of the rebels could be akin and ideologically similar to the Libertarian party which acknowledges an expression of faction and inter-party strife within the two major parties in America, with the Libertarian party combining fundamental American ideals with conservative economics.

Despite the dramatic events of January 6^th, would the Capitol rebels fail as a third party as have most others in American history? The two major parties in America could adopt the ideological grievances and positions of the Capitol rebels and thus lessen any incentive to form new parties. Yet, the Capitol rebels may be so long underrepresented in politics and government that they cannot avail themselves of traditional forms of political participation that a political party offers. Perhaps, for the sake of democracy and diplomacy, citizens who agree and are sympathetic with the positions of the Capitol rebels should lead a new party to which the rebels could belong. This would transcend typical obstacles to formation of a third party such as inadequate financial resources and local and state support. And, a greater increase in popular participation in politics would benefit the emergence of a new party.

The Capitol Rebels Are Due the Benefits of Political Association

Regardless of punitive sanction, the civil self-government of the Capitol rebels should be cultivated. Political parties provide an opportunity for self-expression and civil debate in pursuit of principles and public policy goals. Parties provide a didactic function in educating their members in the art of civics and government. Most importantly, parties foster trust among members by encouraging members to self-govern in a trustworthy manner. Political parties permit representation in a republican form of government. Political parties diffuse the tyrannous majority. This is the guidance the Capitol rebels need.

Political parties embrace general philosophies and thus permit inclusion of as many people as possible. As a result, over time America has evolved into a two-party system. The party of traditional moral values and business interests is the Republican, and the party supporting working class labor and minorities is the Democratic. To transcend this duopoly, third parties must draft a broad-based philosophy that is not a single-issue attraction. In what way do the two major parties not offer ideals, principles and ideology appealing to the Capitol rebels so that a third party would not be a viable alternative?

Is the American experiment in democracy more democratic, more fair and more just with two, adverse political parties willing to expand and be more inclusive? To return to sound and civil government, America must enumerate the possible philosophical bases for third parties, including the Capitol rebels.

In what way do the Capitol rebels represent diversity within the United States? Are they urban and rural, of higher education and not? What are their unifying principles and concerns? In what way did the ideology of Donald Trump find expression in the rebellion of January 6^th? Could the Capitol rebels support the theories of meritocracy and natural aristocracy upon which the United States is founded? Promoting a third-party expression of fascist rebellion could be avoided in a free democracy. Listening to and incorporating itinerant concerns into the political structure would be preferable to forcing violent forms of expression. Third parties possess grievances often expressed through violence when the subject of structural exclusion.

Supporters of former President Donald Trump indicate that they are considering forming a third “Patriot Party.” This demonstrates the perceived need for structuring the public support he possesses into a viable form of expression. Whether one considers Donald Trump to be a “cult of personality” leader or not, he cannot utilize his support unless it assumes effective form. Also, he must create a generational legacy amassed around his positions, opinions and ideology that transcends his being deemed a mere one election figurehead.

Perhaps, the Capitol rebels will create a fourth party. Another grassroots movement may become as entrenched and as well-known as the Patriot Party. Would such a fourth party readily follow on the coattails of the Patriot Party if it quickly announced its existence?

Former President Donald Trump holds grassroot Republican support and must maintain its trust. He must do so by cultivating civil participation. A rebellion or attempted coup is an indication that the cultural voluntary servitudes of entertainment and athletics are no longer an effective panacea. They are enjoyed but do not support or supplant reasoned self-government. Rebellion indicates the cry for a remedy, and the rebels themselves have no answer. Exchanging attributions and projections of blame by governing officials will only result in continued public negativity. People must be encouraged from a grassroots level to engage in traditional political participation.

Representative Democracy Is the Answer

As a republican form of government in the modern era, America is a great, expansive experiment. In merely three hundred years, it has demonstrated a slow but effective development toward justice, fairness, equality and inclusion. A small yet painfully effective rebellion cannot undermine three hundred years of history. Rather, violent uprisings indicate a need for even further progressive democracy.

A democracy must be premised upon trust held by the people in each other, among themselves as they engage in self-government, as well as trust evoked by the government between it and its citizenry. A political party must similarly remain true to its principles and party platform. Promises unkept are hypocrisy. In the recent era of duopoly, no competition exists between the parties. They each have turf dominated by party leadership and no incentive to honor promises made each election. As a result, elections flip flop with exchanges in elected figureheads with no real change in power possessed.

As a result, the U.S. Capitol was stormed by the partyless and unrepresented. They are ostensibly amassed by and the adherents of Donald Trump. But, do they know anything more than that he sought their support. What specifically do they stand for given that they sought to destroy the government they sought for him to lead? The only answer for the rebels is their participation in the American government in some structured form. And, this means participation in the form of a political party, one currently existing or a new, third party. Or, do they remain American citizens who feel that they will always be outside the bounds of government, always unrepresented.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls