Imagine a college-basketball team, named the Eagles. It has lost to the Vultures 80 times over the last 40 years. Can you imagine? The teams meet twice a year, and every year and every game, the Eagles lost. For four decades.

The Eagles changed coaches several times. They changed the roster of assistant coaches multiple times. They hired consultants galore. The Eagles sought and acted on advice from any number of basketball experts. They tried different offenses and different defenses. They changed cheerleaders. They even deployed streakers to distract the Vultures.

Countless complicated plays failed for them. Innumerable strategies fell short. The Eagles tried a freeze. The Vultures beat them. The Eagles ran fast-breaks until their lungs screamed. The Vultures whipped them. The Eagles packed the arena with their fans, wall-to-wall. The Vultures won again. The Eagles tried a full-court press, half-court press, and quarter-court press. The Vultures still thumped them.

The desperate Eagles even resorted to using spies — to steal the Vultures’ game plans and plays. They also tried to bribe the Vultures. But the Vultures took the money and beat them anyway.

Bottomline, everything the Eagles tried, failed. They lost every game against those darned Vultures.

Hope springs eternal. This season, the Eagles hired a new coach. A coach with a difference. He has never coached basketball and never even played it. And from the start, he announced an odd-looking game plan for the big Vultures game. No one has ever seen such a weird game plan.

Well, the air is suddenly filled with noise from critics, experts, alumni, fans, coaches — current and retired. Even the cheerleaders chipped in. The plan is stupid, they cry. It can’t work. The coach is a moron. He’ll be blind-sided. He should do this, instead. He should do that. He should be prepared for this from the Vultures.

The new coach silenced them all with one remark: “I will listen to anyone who has been successful against the Vultures.”

That is probably what President Donald Trump should say to the chorus of critics he has aroused. Now that he has signaled he is happy to sit down with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un to discuss Kim’s nuclear bombs and missiles.

The chorus of critics is big. It includes former presidents, former secretaries of state, prime ministers. Korean experts, foreign-policy experts, and defense figures here and abroad. Also, lots of professors, columnists, TV chatterers, and don’t forget the movie stars. They know everything about everything.

Trump does not know what he is doing, they sing out. He is a moron. Kim will outsmart him. Trump should do this, or that. 

Trump should invite all of these critics to a fancy dinner at the White House. With one stipulation. They have to have had previous success with North Korea. Their policies or ideas must have worked with Kim or his father. “If you can show me how you or your ideas succeeded with North Korea, please come to dinner.”

The president would dine alone. And if he felt he needed some good ideas for dealing with Kim he could go for a walk, to the nearest saloon. “I’ll buy a beer for anybody who has got a new idea for dealing with Little Rocket Man Kim.”

Why not? There is no one on earth who has changed Kim and his father’s path to nuclear weapons. All have failed. No one has credibility. The failures of our top people over the years allowed Kim to advance to a highly dangerous position. Nice going, guys. Kim may soon be able to snuff out millions of lives with his nukes.

To all in that chorus of advisers and critics, Trump could ask “Why should I take your advice?” They would find it difficult to answer.

The Eagles plan this week is to try karate against the Vultures. Hey, you never know.

From Tom…as in Morgan.                 

Tom Morgan writes about political, financial, and other subjects from his home near Oneonta. You can find him on Facebook or write to Tom at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com. Read more of Morgan’s writing at tomasinmorgan.com

We’re at a watershed moment in American political history. Our Congress — I’m talking about the people’s body, the institution created by our founders, and not just the men and women who currently inhabit it — is in deep trouble. And no one seems to be offering hope.

Its public standing is abysmal, occasionally dropping into the single digits in polling. Very few people seem to respect it, even on Capitol Hill. And just as worrisome, power is shifting decisively to the president. The “balance of power” you read about in 7th-grade civics? It’s a myth today. Co-equal branches? Not anymore.

Here’s what may be the most discouraging thing of all: there was a time when Congressional leaders would forcefully defend the Congress. They don’t even bother to do that anymore.

To ponder what we can do about it is to confront a long list of daunting challenges. For starters, Congressional leaders have abandoned two centuries of precedent, a traditional set of norms, customs, and procedures that allowed a body representing the complexities of the entire country to arrive at policy solutions that by and large spoke to the public good.

We’re saddled with a Congress that affords special-interest groups far too much power. Ordinary citizens have lost influence in the process. And the body itself has become polarized, which means that the decisions it makes are more extreme.

Congress has largely rejected its oversight responsibilities, which ought to carry a weight equal to legislating — and which put it on a par with the executive branch. It uses the subpoena power rarely, grills administration and other witnesses only occasionally, and even more rarely holds the executive branch accountable.

You can take the agenda for reform from this depressing litany. Congressional leaders need to stop manipulating the process and let members vote on the tough issues of the day. Finding ways to stem the tidal wave of money and favors is crucial. So are ending gerrymandering and tamping down the politics of polarization. Congress needs to reassert the authority given it by the Constitution to serve as a check on executive overreach and misguided policymaking.

Americans have a right to be disappointed in the performance of the legislative branch. But they also have an obligation to speak up about it and demand action not just on a favored bill, but on improving the effectiveness of the Congress itself.         

Lee Hamilton is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years, representing a district in south central Indiana.