Posts © 2011-2012 by Gerald G. Day

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

September 11, 2019
Is conservatism, as a political posture in this country about to self-destruct?  Conservatism fell from Eisenhower to Reagan to Gingrich to Trump; there isn’t much further to go, and no sign of reversal.
American conservatives aren’t alone in declining.  The degenerate, authoritarian form has surfaced in the United Kingdom as well.  Recently, The Seattle Times carried two related articles about the maneuvering of Boris Johnson which revealed the similarity between conservative politics here and in the UK.
There the issue is, of course, Brexit.  It forms a parallel with the situation here: rejection of  peaceful, organized, beneficial ties to other countries, the pretense that we can go it alone, an economic isolationism.  The Brexit referendum vote was, like our electoral result, a national declaration of backwardness, but Trump and Johnson have gone further, Trump with — among other follies — tariffs,  Johnson with a no-deal exit.   Here are a few quotes from one of those articles which unintentionally point out the similarities:
Opposition lawmakers argue that Mr. Johnson’s strategy is tempting a disastrous and unpopular no-deal Brexit that could tear apart the United Kingdom, cripple some British industries and throw the economy into a recession, while setting off shortages of food and medicines.

We may not lack for food and medicine, but the effect of Trump’s tariffs on industry and the economy are the same. 
Johnson has arranged to suspend Parliament until just before his exit deadline, stifling debate, showing a contempt for the legislature that matches Trump’s.  As a result, “An immediate challenge to the prime minister’s action has been filed in Scotland . . . . A former Conservative prime minister, John Major, joined a prominent businesswoman and opposition leaders in another legal challenge . . . .”  Here the UK is copying our tendency to thrash out political issues in court.
The Scottish court ruled today that Johnson’s reason for suspending Parliament was a pretext, concealing the real reasons for the five-week hiatus, and that the move was “unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament.”  The judges termed the government’s behavior “a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behavior of public authorities,”[70] an apt description of the Trump administration.
The situation in London is serious.  “Still, some analysts say there are ways for a restive Parliament to regain control — namely by voting out Mr. Johnson’s government — if only it stopped dithering.”[71]  Does a dithering legislature sound familiar?
The second article focused on anti-Johnson demonstrations, including one in Northern Ireland, where Johnson is blundering into a fortified border (while Trump attempting to construct one here).  “In Belfast, protesters gathered outside city hall. Brigitte Anton, 52, said that people think Johnson is ‘a bit of laugh and a buffoon’,“ a perfect parallel.
She went on: “I think he thinks he can get away with things, that people won’t notice, or people will be too surprised or scared to do anything . . .”  Again, the description fits our Leader. “Dictator? I would say not yet but it is developing toward that.”[72]   As to that comment, consider Trump’s order, by tweet, of course —what a timid dictator — to American companies to leave China.
The demise of the Republican Party has been predicted from time to time, and a new book by Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, renews the forecast: RIP GOP: How the New America Is Dooming the Republicans; he thinks that a blue wave in 2020 will shatter the Republican Party. (He is not the first to use that title; RIP GOP: The Decline and Fall of a Once-Great Party, by Martin Schram was published in 2017).  Greenberg repeated the prediction in a New York Times column entitled “The Republican Party is Doomed.”
However, the GOP has a powerful ally in the electoral college.  Predictions by Democrats that demographics would bring them to power were at least partly delusional and helped to misdirect attention toward ethnicity and away from economic inequity.  They need to stop helping the GOP to survive by ignoring working people and middle America.


70. parliament- was-illegal/2019/09/11/84265a36-d40a-11e9-8924-1db7dac797fb_story.html?wpisrc=nl _most&wpmm=1

71. Preceding quotes from constitution-brexit.html?searchResultPosition=6

72. reaches-boris-johnsons-doorstep/2019/08/31/89e04762-cb67-11e9-9615-8f1a32962e04_story.html

Saturday, August 24, 2019

August 24, 2019
Are popular votes a good thing?  When it comes to deciding issues or making policy, we could cite examples pro and con.  The Brexit fiasco is an argument against referenda.  My state uses popular votes freely, by initiative and referendum and to authorize property levies. That system produces mixed results.  A negative example is the repeal, some years ago, of the state inheritance tax.
On the plus side is Initiative I-1639, passed last year, which imposed gun controls; it accomplished something important which the Legislature had failed to do.  However, it also demonstrated the limitations of legislation by initiative; the proposed law was far too complex for most voters to fully comprehend and, unlike the legislative process, there was no forum for clarifying discussion.[67]  As to legislation, it’s better, on average, when the will of the people is expressed through representatives.  Is indirect voting best as well in choosing a president, or should we trust and empower the people?
The question can be posed by two quotes attributed to, or borrowed by, Winston Churchill: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter,” but “it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried.”  To frame the dilemma another way: On August 16, I noted the deficiency in public political knowledge revealed by surveys.  That hardly is a basis for arguing that we need more democracy, but we can’t wait for better education to decide whether the people should vote for president directly or through an undemocratic filter, the electoral college.
When I’ve seen or heard the terms “populism” and “populist,” I’ve thought they were misused, often in a sense evoking white nationalism or something equally reactionary.  However, we usually think of our nation as populist in the sense that the people rule.  Do they?  The fact that twice in sixteen years the electoral college canceled the popular vote demonstrates that we do not have a system in which the people genuinely choose their President.  The advent of Donald Trump is sufficient proof that we need more democracy, notwithstanding the shortcomings of the electorate; their choice was better, as it was in 2000.
The electoral college reflects the structure of Congress, which is only a semi-democratic institution.  Although allocation of House seats is based on population, adjusted every ten years by the census, each state has two Senators regardless of population, which varies widely, so representation in the Senate is anything but equal; one person, one vote does not apply there.  Senators are, since adoption of Amendment XVII, elected by the people of their states, so a popular vote is involved, but that does not eliminate the inherent inequality of representation.
California, with 39,747,267 people has two Senators (one per 19,873,634 people), as does Wyoming, with 572,381 (0ne per 286,191).[68]   If the states were significant entities or had historical status, the iscrepancy might be justifiable.  That argument can be made for the original thirteen, but west of there, boundaries often are arbitrary. Whatever the reasons for the size, shape and topography of the states, the makeup of the Senate distorts the electoral college.
The electoral system allocates to each state votes equal to the total of its Senators plus Representatives, thereby copying, in diluted form, the anti-populist bias of the Senate.  California has 55 electoral votes, one per 722,678 people, Wyoming 3, one per 190,794.  The ten smallest states by population (including the District Of Columbia) have 8,748,783 residents combined and 32 electoral votes,[69] one per 273,399 people.  The ten largest have 178,350,729 residents and 256 votes, one per 696,683.  It makes no sense.
However, we’re stuck with the makeup of the states and the Senate, and probably with the electoral college, all of which have constitutional status, so three programs are crucial to restoration of democracy; the first is adoption of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) to neutralize the electoral college.
  The member states of NPVIC pledge to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, thus converting the electoral college into a populist institution.  The compact will take effect when adopted by states possessing 270 electoral votes, a majority of the total, 538.  It has been enacted into law in 16 states (including DC), possessing 196 electoral votes, and will take effect if states with 74 votes are added.  The chances are difficult to evaluate; several states have gone part way, for example by passing the bill in one house, but Colorado now will vote on a referendum to repeal its adoption.
The other two changes necessary to government by the people are recapture of the Senate and the White House by Democrats and major restrictions on filibusters and holds, so that the Senate can come closer to conducting the people’s business.


67. My comments on the initiative are in the post of 12/30/18.

68. State populations:
69.  Electoral votes:

Friday, August 16, 2019

August 16, 2019
Orwell’s 1984 is a fantasy, but this country under Trump is beginning to have an eerie and worrisome similarity to Oceania under Big Brother.  The novel described the mind set of a citizen:
In the ramifications of Party doctrine she had not the faintest interest.  Whenever he began to talk of the [party line], she became bored and confused and said that she never paid any attention to that kind of thing.  One knew it was all rubbish, so why let oneself be worried by it?  She knew when to cheer and when to boo, and that was all that one needed. [58]
That could fit anyone at a Trump rally; this could describe the Base:
In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it.  They could be made to accept the most flagrant violation of reality, because they. . . were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.[59]
The parallel is not complete; the political situation in Oceania more nearly resembled that of the USSR under Stalin than of Trump’s America.  Big Brother had control the Donald only can dream of.  However, his faithful do seem to be limited to knowing when to cheer and when to boo.
The Appendix to 1984 describes the principles of Newspeak: “words such as honour, justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science, and religion had simply ceased to exist. . . .” Without much exaggeration, we can say that they have been suppressed in Trumpland as well, with the exception of “religion,” which has been redefined into a category of politics.  In addition, “all words grouping  themselves round  the  concepts  of  objectivity  and  rationalism  were  contained  in  the  single  word oldthink.”[60]  That certainly fits.  “Ultimately  it  was  hoped  to  make  articulate  speech  issue  from the  larynx  without  involving  the  higher  brain  centres  at all.”[61]  Appled to written speech, that could describe Trump’s tweets.
Why do Trump’s followers swallow his lies?  There are several factors: fear, bias, resentment of the “elitism” of liberals, a sort of class solidarity, but also ignorance about history and political concepts, a failing shared with much of the population.
As to the public’s ignorance, various studies have found the following:
• only 13 percent knew when the U.S. Constitution was ratified, even on a multiple-choice exam, with most thinking it occurred in 1776.
• 60 percent didn’t know which countries the United States fought in World War II.
• 57 percent did not know how many Justices serve on the Supreme Court.
• 37 percent believed that Benjamin Franklin invented the lightbulb.
• 12 percent thought General Dwight Eisenhower led troops in the Civil War; 6 percent thought it was the Vietnam War.[62]
• only half of adults could name the three branches of government. [63]
• more than a third did not know the century in which the American Revolution took place.
• half believed that either the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation or the War of 1812 were before the American Revolution;[64]
• 41 percent could not identify Auschwitz as a Nazi concentration or extermination camp.  As with other surveys, young people were less well informed than their elders: among millennials, 66 percent could not identify Auschwitz.[65]
Does a college education help?  Not much, apparently.
• One-third of college graduates were unaware that FDR introduced the New Deal.
• Nearly half did not know that Teddy Roosevelt played a major role in the construction of the Panama Canal.
• Over one-third could not place the American Civil War in the correct 20-year time-frame.
• Nearly half could not identify correctly the term lengths of U.S. senators and representatives. [66]
There’s more, and it’s all depressing.  How can a democracy function, how can rule by a demagogue be avoided if so many citizens know so little?  The internet can’t be blamed for all of this; the educational system, top to bottom, needs attention.


58. 1984, Part II, Chapter 5; in the omnibus George Orwell, p. 836
60. Id., at 921
Id,. at 923
62. ship-test/
63. ow-less-you-think-180955431/#Aim8aA7mLsEUFsHX.99
64. ledge/340761/
65. millen nials-dont-know-what-auschwitz-is-according-to-study-of-fading-holocaust-knowledge/
66. society

Saturday, August 10, 2019

August 10, 2019
Do climate-change deniers read newspapers?  It’s tempting to think that they don’t or that they believe reports are, to quote our leader, fake news; that could explain their continuing to deny in the face of headlines like “Greenland is on track for a record melt year, having already lost 250 billion tons of ice.”  Wilful ignorance certainly is a factor.
Many who are not outright deniers may be unaware of the scope of the problem because of poor reporting.  I watch NBC news most evenings and, whenever a story about extreme weather is included, I wait for a connection to be made to climate change; it almost never comes.  The headline I quoted is from an August 8 article in The Washington Post , which mentions that glacier melting leads to sea level rise — a reportorial step in the right direction — but does not suggest why that might be a problem for people living in coastal areas.  Yes, it may be necessary to draw pictures; another recent article reported that homes still are being built in flood zones.[50]
On July 30, the New York Times, describing floods along the lower Mississippi, made the point: “Climate change is increasingly turning the extraordinary into the ordinary. Extreme floods and snowfall, at times moving to extreme heat and droughts, are forcing cities and farming communities across the country to grapple with the threat to their homes and livelihoods.”  It quoted an endangered species biologist on the flooding: “This is biblical proportion.”[51] Allowing for forgivable exaggeration, comparing the effects of climate change to the Flood in Genesis is apt: climate change may render the earth uninhabitable.  That, however brings us to another impediment to belief in climate change: religious doctrine.
Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma wrote a book a few years ago entitled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future .  For him, the Flood, or its aftermath, is an argument against doing anything.[52]  In his book, he dealt with scientific fact by pretending that it didn’t exist and twice cited Genesis chapter 8, verse 22 to prove that climate catastrophe cannot happen.[53]   That verse is part of a description of the aftermath of the Flood which Noah, family and animal pairs survived on the Ark.  Here’s the relevant passage (using the King James version which Inhofe no doubt prefers):       
8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

8:21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
God promised not to smite every living thing or curse the ground; does that say we can’t ruin everything?  Assuming that verse 22 is part of the “quote” beginning with verse 21, there will be seasons as long as the earth remains; giving that the interpretation most congenial to Inhofe’s theology, it is a divine guaranty that there will be some periodic variation in weather: seasons.  That does not rule out drastic change.  Think of the Ice Ages, although Inhofe may not believe in them either.
Then again, he probably does.  Here’s Inhofe in a speech in 2016: “One of the smartest things the other side did is when they got rid of, they quit talking about, global warming and started talking about climate change. Don’t get caught in that trap. I’ve had to say this on the Senate floor many times: That climate is changing. I mean, look at it archaeologically, spiritually, scientifically. Climate always changes.”[54]  Presumably “archeological change” refers to such periods as ice ages.  Inhofe prefers “global warming” because it allows him to refer to winter weather — see, we aren’t warm! — and to prove there is no warming by bringing a snowball into the Senate.
Senator Inhofe isn’t unaware of what, at the simplest level, is occurring; he noted recently that, “Over the past few weeks, Oklahomans around the state faced record rainfall and severe weather, leading to widespread destruction and flooding.”[55]  He just can’t take the next step because he would be forced to face other, unacceptable facts, and rethink his reading of Genesis.
I’m laboring this not because I think that we should make environmental policy based on Biblical exegesis, but to demonstrate that a core argument by a leading denier is nonsense.  He is not the only one who employs a theological approach to politics, nor is this the only subject which receives that treatment. For further clarification, I’m not attacking religion or, specifically Christianity; I’m suggesting that what passes for the latter, in the context of current political discussion, often is a gross distortion.
A story the Senator told on a radio program perfectly encapsulated his mind set and that of other diehard deniers:  “Senator Inhofe told the Eric Metaxas radio show this week that his granddaughter once asked him, ‘Pop I, why is it you don't understand global warming?’ ” His response: “[T]he stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, you have to un-brainwash them when they get out."[56]  Don’t learn, remain dangerously ignorant and pass that on.
The Senator’s rejection of climate change mirrors the attitude of the Trump administration, which also pretends that it doesn’t exist, going so far as to ban use of the term.[57]   Dealing with climate change requires political change, soon.


50. flooding. html


52. For more on the Inhofe philosophy, see my note of December 6, 2014.

53. The Greatest Hoax , pp. 75, 174



56. about-climate-change-484651

57. See discussion at: _change.php

Saturday, August 3, 2019

August 2, 2019
Television news is a window into a dismal present, a summary of the characteristics of a culture in crisis. Nightly we see shootings, instances of police brutality, floods and other signs of climate disaster and, to remove all hope for the future, Trump’s latest demented threat to make it all worse.
For entertainment, we can be spectators at the contest between the United States and the United Kingdom for the status of most self-destructive nation.  The elevation of Boris Johnson has allowed the UK to close the gap.  He and Trump are in a competition to determine who can more completely isolate his country from the rest of the world.  Not being at Trump’s level of ignorance and inexperience, Johnson’s bad ideas are more clearly manipulative.  According to a profile in The New York Review of Books, he didn’t make up his mind until the last moment whether to support or oppose the Brexit referendum.  However, even Boris, of Eton and Oxford, has his lapses, apparently believing that, after withdrawing from the EU, the UK still would be a member of its governing council, the sort of delusion one would expect of Trump.[48]  By design or lapse, the Two Stooges are leading their people to the cliff edge.
As different as they are, a description of Johnson’s performance applies as well to Trump’s: “an act, a turn, a traveling show.”  That show is designed to entertain and fire up the base: “In this theater of the absurd, it never matters whether the stories are true; what matters is that they are ludicrous enough to fly under the radar of credibility and hit the sweet spot where preexisting prejudices are confirmed.”[49]
Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are having such fun tearing each other down, and even trashing the Obama administration, and the House leadership is so determined to oppose impeachment, that the odds of another four years of decline and danger on this side of the Atlantic are increasing.  Actually, “leadership” is the wrong word for Speaker Pelosi.  She appears to waiting for a popular demand for impeachment.


Fintan O’Toole, “The Ham of Fate,” August 15, 2019 Issue


Friday, July 26, 2019

July 26, 2019
Donald Trump’s combination of ignorance and authoritarianism is well known, but he apparently felt the need recently to emphasize it by displaying his acquaintance with, and interpretation of, the Constitution.  On June 16, with his focus on the impropriety of the report that supposedly exonerated him, he mumbled this: “. . . look, Article II. I would be allowed to fire Robert Mueller. . . . He wasn't fired. Okay? Number one, very importantly. But more importantly, Article II allows me to do whatever I want. Article II would have allowed me to fire him.”[45]
On July 12, again fretting about the Mueller report, he claimed to have uncovered the forgotten Article II of the Constitution: “And how do you obstruct when there’s no crime? Also, take a look at one other thing.  It’s a thing called Article II.  Nobody ever mentions Article II.  It gives me all of these rights at a level that nobody has ever seen before. We don’t even talk about Article II.” [46]
Speaking to a conservative teen group on July 23, babbling once more about the  investigation, and apparently referring to his alleged ability to shut it down, he asserted: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president. But I don’t even talk about that because they did a report and there was no obstruction.”[47]  He doesn’t talk about that, having just talked about it, again. 
Assuming that Trump ever read Article II, or had it read to him, or had it put on flash cards, he wouldn’t have found any such grant of monarchical authority, but no doubt he would have been drawn to Section 2, which provides that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . . .” and gives him “Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States . . .”  Threaten war; pardon loyalists who get caught: such a deal.
However, Article II also contains that pesky Section 4: “The President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  Arrogating all power to himself would qualify; he’s saved on that count only by ineptness, indecision and some measure of control by aides.  Obstruction of justice is another ground and he continues to practice that by interfering with testimony before Congress. 
Trump virtually is begging to be impeached.  Some think this is not, as it seems, authoritarian stupidity, but a ploy to turn voters against the Democrats, to ensure re-election.  Does Trump sound like a clever plotter?  Hardly, but he may not need to be.  His followers have been fiercely loyal no matter how repulsive he is; Democrats, instead of confronting the menace, fight among themselves.  Once again, Yeats’ famous phrase applies:         
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; 
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. . . ;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst  
Are full of passionate intensity.






Friday, July 19, 2019

July 19, 2019

Was Trump’s serial outburst against four minority women a calculated political ploy or just the Donald in typical form?  His history of racist comments suggests the latter.  However, there has been a good deal of speculation that his comments were designed to achieve two ends: fire up his bigoted base and force Democrats to defend “the Squad,” thereby identifying the Party with its extreme wing.   Although I incline to the view that Trump isn’t intelligent enough or disciplined enough to devise and carry out a political plan, he has advisors, and their re-election strategy seems to be based on holding the states that he won in 2016; Trump’s campaign appearances have focused on those states.  Planning for another minority win, depending again on the undemocratic electoral college, nailing down that vote through an appeal to prejudice is pathetic, but then . . . .
Following that plan, Trump, at a rally in North Carolina Wednesday, went on at length about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s actual or imagined statements, with the obvious intent of turning the crowd against her.  Taking their cue from his tweets about Omar and her colleagues, (“you can’t leave fast enough”), and his anti-Hillary slogan (“lock her up”), they chanted — spontaneously? — “send her back!”
However, some Republican members of Congress denounced the chant, and the advisors may be having second thoughts.  At a news conference on Thursday, Trump claimed that he was “not happy” with the chant, and that he had cut it off by “speaking very quickly.”  In fact, as video shows, he was silent for twelve seconds while the chant continued, exhibiting no disapproval, then went on talking about Omar.  Later he tossed out “Pocahontas” just to show how much he disapproves of racial politics.
During the 1984 campaign, some of President Reagan’s advisors thought he had been too carefully managed, and advocated letting Reagan be Reagan.  Trump’s allies may decide that a similar strategy won’t work for as ugly a character as he is.  However, they may not have a choice.  On Friday, Trump returned to form.  The crowd at the rally, presumably including the chanters, are “incredible patriots.”  As to Omar, “She’s lucky to be where she is, let me tell you. And the things that she has said are a disgrace to our country.”  He’s no longer unhappy about the chant: “No, you know what I’m unhappy with — the fact that a congresswoman can hate our country. I’m unhappy with the fact that a congresswoman can say anti-Semitic things.”[44]  Trump will be Trump.


44. chant-trump-criticizes-media-for-its-coverage-of-his-rally/2019/07/19/9c094c16-aa12-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html?_view=prod&utm_term=.a1d82f49a693&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

July 16, 2019
Donald Trump faced a Democratic Party in disarray. One of the fractures was between Speaker Pelosi and four leftist minority women, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. Very stable genius that he is, Trump attacked those women in a manner so offensive that Pelosi and the rest of the Party rallied around, achieving — at least temporarily — the unity they had disdained. On July 14 he tweeted (beginning at 5:27 AM):
So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how.... is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
After an outcry, rather than defusing the situation, he doubled down on his insults, but claimed that many people agree with him, thus sending a message to the bigoted base to rally around. Among his outbursts was an accusation that the four are pro-terrorist.
Would Republicans finally decide that too much is too much? Here’s Lindsey Graham: “We all know that AOC and this crowd are a bunch of communists. They hate Israel, they hate our own country . . .” Communists? Lindsey, Lindsey, at least find a contemporary insult. (Trump also listed hatred of Israel among their sins). House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was less out of date but equally wedded to cliché: defending Trump from charges of racism, he pronounced that the Leader’s dispute with the women was “about ideology. It’s about socialism versus freedom.” Four brave Republicans did vote for a House resolution which “strongly condemns Donald Trump’s racist comments.”
Those comments have persuaded one House Democrat to file articles of impeachment. This episode is the wrong focus for that move, but the House leadership and many members have been so cautious that it may never have happened otherwise. It will be interesting to see whether the impeachment issue will return the Democrats to their normal position of dithering, bickering ineffectualness.
Let’s hope that some segment of the base expresses reservations about Trump’s success in making America great again — perhaps on the effects of tariffs— something that will, however slightly, imply that he isn’t a visionary leader, bruising his tender ego. If he were to respond in characteristic fashion, he might drive enough away to make 2020 a happy time.

Thursday, July 11, 2019

July 11, 2019

The California legislature has passed a bill, expected to be signed by the governor, which is intended to impose a stricter standard for the justifiable use of deadly force by police. Although the bill is not as strong as one of its sponsors claims,[40] any step toward better control is welcome. There have been too many shootings, many fatal, by police officers.[41] A disproportionate number of those victims have been black. [42]

Any number of factors may be at work in producing the number of fatal shootings; here are my non-expert thoughts: The statistics make clear that racial bias is a significant element. Training may be another, if it makes shooting the default reaction. Militarization of police departments contributes to the problem; too many situations involve heavily armed forces and confusion. Fear is a factor, in turn probably driven in part by the glut of guns, leading cops to assume everyone is armed and dangerous.

Data on non-fatal shootings by police are hard to come by, but it is likely that there are many such incidents and that racial distribution is similar to that for fatal encounters.[43]

Police have a difficult, inherently dangerous, necessary role, and blanket condemnation is neither fair nor useful, but there have been too many instances of bad behavior to ignore or explain away. Rooting out reactionary attitudes, including racism, would be a great step forward, and addressing the problem of too many guns would serve both the police and the rest of us, but what are the odds in the age of Trump?

40. 5cf02f23e4b0e346ce7b0bc8
41. Nearly 1000 fatal shootings per year:
42. racial-disparities

Friday, July 5, 2019

July 5, 2019
Elected officials of the Democratic Party are striving to validate the first part of Will Rogers’ dictum:  Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they'd be Republicans."  (The lockstep-behind-Trump GOP demonstrates the other part).
The Dems began, after winning the House last fall, not by agreeing on a strategy but arguing about whether Nancy Pelosi should be replaced as  speaker.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, rather than displaying the caution appropriate to one who is new to her role, postured like a party leader, abetted by breathless media coverage.  She announced a plan to challenge some of her colleagues at the next primary; doctrinal purity over party solidarity.  As Rogers also said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. . . . I'm a Democrat."
There has been consensus in the House on some issues, but surprising discord regarding  a formal impeachment inquiry, which would focus attention on Trump’s incompetence, dishonesty and venality.  (Here Ocasio-Cortez has the right idea). 
The fact that it is idiotic to start the presidential election season this early may be a factor in driving the Democratic candidates into a hyper-competitive, mutually destructive mode. Sen. Kamala Harris may have thought that her angry, self-righteous attack on Joe Biden would be a clever tactic, and would make her the darling of the left, but its primary effect was to help Trump.  The media aided in both regards by declaring her performance powerful.
The candidates have other, less ego-driven problems.  Many back Sen. Sanders’  Medicare for all plan, but his and their support seems unexamined.  Problems include ignoring cost and glossing over, or waffling on, the elimination of private insurance, including employer-provided plans.  That would seem to ensure opposition not only by a powerful business lobby, but by many employees and those who suspect that supplemental insurance always will be needed.  
Republicans’reactionary policies and political immorality must be opposed and defeated, but Democratic disunity will not accomplish that. Democrats must follow a progressive agenda on, for example, economic inequality, but an unthinking lurch to the left lessens the chances of ridding us of Trump and McConnell.

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

June 17, 2019
Right-wing television performers, a.k.a. news people (the real fake news) are wrong with regularity and most often annoyingly so, but now and again their nonsense provides comic relief.
Rush Limbaugh compared D Day to the “invasion” of illegal immigrants at the southern border.  The analogy would put the border patrol in the shoes of the Nazi defenders and the immigrants would be the liberating troops.  That probably wasn’t the image he had in mind, but nonstop bloviating is bound to confuse.
When Nancy Pelosi said she wanted to see Trump in jail, Sean Hannity responded in baffled horror: she "wants a political opponent locked up in prison? That happens in banana republics -- beyond despicable behavior."  Apparently that became despicable only recently; Hannity parroted “lock her up” over and over about Hillary Clinton’s alleged crimes.  Speaking of banana republics, has Sean noticed the trend of our nation’s character under Colonel Trump?
Ainsley Earhardt of Fox and Friends contributed this: “you can say whatever you want about the president, but his negotiation tactics are amazing.”  His skills are so formidable that he is conned by Putin and Kim, and this is her notion of his negotiating tactics: “he's sitting down with this delegation, he's got folks in D.C. right now that have been sitting down with these Mexican delegates that have come up to try to work out a deal.”  Sitting down! Impressive.
Her first phrase seems to admit that there is much on the debit side to say about Trump, again probably not the intended message.
Meanwhile, two things we can say about the President were confirmed: he isn’t bright, and he thinks that election-related collusion with foreign sources is just fine.  He has denied continuously  any collusion with Russia and twisted the Mueller Report to mean that there was none.  However, his and his campaign’s eager reception of ammunition against Hillary Clinton showed collusion, and now he’s underscored his willingness to repeat that pattern.  Asked whether he would accept politically damaging information from a foreign source, he said "I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening,"  As an example, "If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."  We might guess that the source would be a bit more sinister than Norway.        
In a tweeted attempt at damage control, Trump likened election interference to his conversations with such dignitaries as the Prince of Whales.

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

June 4, 2019
Apparently it was necessary for Robert Mueller to deliver an address informing us that the report of his investigation meant what it said.  Following his recent public oral summary of the report, news media and various Democrats suddenly and dramatically announced their awareness of its message, including its reminder that Congress has the power to remove a president.
It is true that the report is bland, cautious and indirect.  However, Mueller’s recital was no less so.  The report is long, but its executive summaries made the same points that he made in his brief speech.  Perhaps Democrats and the media learn only aurally, in the case of the latter an ironic trait as they attempt to persuade people to read newspapers or web pages. 
Now that the reminder has been underscored, perhaps Nancy Pelosi’s somewhat puzzling reticence will be overcome.  Democrats shouldn’t fall for the argument that Trump is goading them into impeaching him, calculating that he can play the martyr on his way to reelection. He is afraid of impeachment, as he has been afraid of disclosures about virtually any aspect of his life.
Many Democrats and pundits think that impeaching Trump is not worth the political risk.  They may be worrying too much about 2020, and overstating the likelihood of Trump’s reelection.  Trump lost in 2016 by 2.8 million votes; only the peculiarity of the electoral system saved him, and that by fewer than 78,000 votes scattered over three states.  A focus on critical states, largely absent last time, could bring a different result.  As to the popular vote, it’s difficult to imagine that anti-Trump voters last time will vote for him next time around, and easy to think that a few of his backers have had enough.  Polls continue to show negative favorability and job performance numbers for Trump, and thus far straw polls show some of the Democratic candidates leading him for 2020.  All of that could change, but if Democrats can’t defeat a candidate as unqualified as Donald Trump, they may as well disband.
Why does Trump want to be reelected?  He has so little interest in governance and is so removed from any coherent philosophy that another run, which clearly is underway,  seems to have nothing to do with politics, in the usual sense.  True, he will advocate border control, but that is more opportunistic than principled.  He will support lower taxes, but that is a matter of private interest.  Winning again serves two needs: extending his immunity from prosecution, and caressing his ego.
That ego is fragile.  He reacts dramatically to any perceived slight.  At some level, Trump may know that he is a loser, and not only at the ballot box.  Treating him with caution is the wrong approach; he should be challenged, constantly and systematically, the latter best achieved through an impeachment proceeding.  The House Democrats should learn a lesson from the Mueller restatement: Trump’s unfitness has been public knowledge from the beginning, but it may take a formal, broadcast recital to drive the point home.  Televised impeachment hearings could be the vehicle.
When the House Judiciary Committee considered impeachment of Richard Nixon, it was criticized for conducting a compilation rather than an investigation.  A systematic, public, televised compilation of Trump’s abuse of his office is just what is needed now; many of the facts already are known; they need to be gathered and dramatically displayed.  (A good preliminary summary appeared in Dana Milbank’s Post column on June 3, but effective only for those who read). 
A cap spotted on a Trump doll in the anti-Trump protest in London read: “Make America Great Again. Impeach Me.”  Congress, there’s yet another hint.  (I liked “Build a wall to keep Trump out” too).

Saturday, May 18, 2019

May 17, 2019   
     The Mueller report confirmed the obvious; Donald Trump should not be President.  Several hundred former federal prosecutors have declared that, if Trump did not hold that office, which supposedly renders him immune from indictment and prosecution, he would have been indicted for obstruction of justice. That immunity was assumed by the Mueller team, based in part on a Department of Justice opinion which found that “The  indictment  or  criminal  prosecution  of  a  sitting  President  would  unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”[37] 
     Even if the President should be protected from a criminal trial during his term because it would be too disruptive and time consuming, an argument can be made for permitting indictment, which would be less so.  However, the Special Counsel decided otherwise, so the question probably is moot.     The Mueller Report did not make a criminal referral and ended the obstruction section with this weak conclusion: “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.”  Even that suggests evidence of misconduct, but it allowed Trump to claim vindication and Mitch McConnell to declare “case closed.”
     The Mueller report, in addition to accepting and deferring to the DOJ opinion, added this statement of limitations: “we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.”  The first part of that sentence essentially restates the DOJ opinion in non-constitutional terms, but the reference to preempting constitutional processes is a not-very-subtle hint that impeachment is the way to deal with Presidential crimes.
     The prosecutors’ letter is as direct as the report is elliptical:
The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.[38]
The last was later more forcefully expressed as witness tampering and intimidation.
     Should President Trump be impeached?  Certainly he deserves it, and impeachment would be a formal declaration of his crimes.  He would not be convicted by the spineless Senate, so impeachment would have to be justified by its declaration alone.  Persuasive arguments have been made for and against.  My initial reaction was that it would be a bad idea.  It would allow Trump to complain again about how Democrats, jealous of his election, are conspiring to bring him down, to stage a coup. The legal pointlessness of impeachment would feed that narrative.  It would take some time to vote impeachment, especially given the lack of consensus among Democrats.  The election season already is under way, and impeachment might seem a late, desperate, attempt to tip the scale.
     Also, the House does not need an impeachment resolution to investigate Trump’s actions.  Pursuing new avenues and adding evidence to known scandals might doom his chance of reelection, so removal, though delayed, would be by conventional means.  Democrats also need to address, and need to be seen addressing, issues other than Trump’s character.
     However, the point remains: he is unfit for office.  Do we accept that as just one of the facts of contemporary politics?  Do we in effect declare that obstruction, along with Trump’s other disqualifying traits and actions, is acceptable because declaring  otherwise might be politically risky?  Should the House duck its constitutional responsibility and hope that voters do its job?   Caution in the face of menace often doesn’t produce good results.   In addition, Trump and his supporters will accuse the Democrats of all sorts of jealous, divisive misconduct even if they make no move toward impeachment, so the risk may not be as great as it seems.  
     If impeachment were to proceed, what should the articles allege? Obstruction, as detailed in the Mueller report, is obvious, and Republicans would be hard pressed to claim that such a charge is unwarranted, given the obstruction article in the Clinton impeachment, based on trivial underlying issues.  Trump has entered phase two of obstruction, refusing document requests by Congress, interfering with testimony, and suing third parties to prevent cooperation with Congress.  This form of obstruction undermines Congress’ oversight role and threatens the equality of the branches of government.  Trump justifies this interference by arguing that requests for information must be limited to supporting proposed legislation, in effect that Congress has no oversight authority.  The implication is that, in order to investigate, the House must be pursuing impeachment.  It may as well take that hint too.
     Mueller found no conspiracy with Russia, but Trump and his campaign staff clearly welcomed its interference.  There couldn’t be a clearer demonstration of that than Trump’s public appeal to Russia on July 27, 2016 to publish Hillary Clinton’s emails.  That alone may have been a crime and, as election hacking by foreigners clearly is a crime, it it suggested that a President Trump would have little regard for the constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
     A citizen is said to have asked this of Benjamin Franklin about the work of the Constitutional Convention: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?” His reply: “A republic, if you can keep it.”  That warning, apocryphal or not, deserves attention.  Trump’s authoritarian aspirations are revealed by his respect for foreign strong men, most recently demonstrated by his hosting Viktor Orbán, who knows how to deal with pesky news media.  Trump, due to ego-driven instinct and as a reaction to threats, is giving the imperial presidency a new meaning, emulating a monarch, attempting to rule independent of the first branch.  Congress needs to take action to preserve the Republic.
     Trump is unique among Presidents in the degree to which he puts the country in peril.  That should tip the balance: we can’t afford another term or another Trump.


37. p0222_0.pdf