Troubling Times Ahead

Posted: March 22, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

As I ponder current events, I find that I am deeply troubled by what is taking place.  It is troubling on so many levels, from today’s tragic terrorist attacks in Brussels Belgium — which appear to be part of a concerted attack on Western Europe — to the emergency closing of the Washington D.C. Metro system for 24 hours last week due to serious safety concerns — yet another stark reminder of our deteriorating infrastructure.  And of course, I find the current political season to be the same old dreary one that we have experienced over the last several years — only worse.  Normally, I am a pretty optimistic individual, but that pool of optimism is quickly drying up.  As many of you know, I often look to history to keep things in perspective, and believe it or not, we have had some dark days in our nation’s history that used to make the current one pale in comparison.  Now I cannot help but wonder if future historians will look at this era as one of the darkest.

As troubling as recent world and domestic events may be, I am deeply concerned about the tone and pronouncements coloring our presidential primary campaigns.  As I said before, it is difficult to believe that out of our entire population, the remaining five candidates are the best that our country has to offer. All five are flawed in some way.  That said, it appears that our future president is one of those five.  More specifically, all wishing aside, it is nearly certain that next year at this time we will have either a President Trump or a President Clinton.

I try to be even-handed, while expressing my opinion, in my posted pieces.  I find it impossible to be even-handed when thinking of a President Trump.  In his words, it would be a disaster. He has no real policy other than vague assertions that we should believe him that he will solve every problem because he is such a great negotiator.  Where he does offer some specificity, as rare as that may be, his policies are non-sensical or likely to cause serious damage to our nation as we know it.  He, along with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), have certainly tapped into a vibrant and energized element of our society that is totally dissatisfied with business as usual.  Got it.  Unfortunately, other Republicans and Democrats were slow to “get it” or never wanted to get it.

However, to me Senator Sanders is far less dangerous than Mr. Trump.  The Senator is way off base in his economic policies.  They are mostly feel good proposals that if enacted would bankrupt our country and end up making the economy worse than it already is.  His appeal emanates from frustration with the economic collapse of 2007 and 2008 where everyday workers and investors feel they were had by the Wall Street titans and that the average citizen has no chance of competing in a rigged system.  In this he may be right as reflected in the fact that all these years later, no one from Wall Street has been held personally accountable for the mess they created.  To get a sense of how that system works, try reading The Big Short (or take the short-cut and watch the recent movie version of it).

Mr. Trump is far worse.  Forget for the moment (as difficult as that is) his lack of truthfulness and his narcissistic, rabble rousing, profane, violence inducing, hateful comments about other religions, ethnic groups and women.  And forget for the moment his not so veiled threat of “riots” if he does not get the nomination. Let’s instead just take a sampling of what he proposes to do as president.

He has repeatedly said that he would “change the law” covering his ability to sue individuals that criticize him.  Suing people is apparently his hobby.  More to the point, if you listen to what he proposes, he plans to stifle our most fundamental right — the freedom of speech enshrined in our Constitution as the First Amendment (maybe he finds it hard to believe that it is even more important than the right to carry weapons). He is notoriously thin-skinned and lashes out at anyone that criticizes him.  He is obsessed. As president, he would get criticism almost on a daily basis — it’s what we do to our presidents.  What actions would he initiate as he acts out against those critics?  It appears our right to free speech would be explicitly inhibited, or at least implicitly stifled through repeated investigations of dissenters.

Today during an interview on NBC in reaction to the attacks in Brussels he was asked if he would use “any means necessary” to get information from those already arrested.  He said yes.  To make sure that they understood him, the interviewers asked directly if he meant torture.  He said yes.  And not just “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding.  He said torture.  To be sure, he said that he would “have to follow the law” which now precludes torture, but cavalierly added that he would change the law to allow it.  Remember that he has already announced that he would kill the families of terrorists, regardless of whether they were aware of their relative’s activities or not.

Yesterday, he said that NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the basic building block of our foreign policy and the collection of our closest allies) was no longer relevant and that he would consider withdrawing from it.  A few days ago he was asked who his foreign policy advisers would be were he president and he famously said

“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.  I know what I’m doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I’ll tell you who the people are.  But my primary consultant is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff.”

An ego that has no bounds.  To be fair, yesterday he announced a list of five advisers that are, shall we say, less well-known than one would expect.  But at least one, George Popadopolous lists being a representative to the 2012 Model U.N. in Geneva as one of his qualifications, so he’s got that going for him.

I could go on, the list is endless and as I have written about before, Mr. Trump may actually be resurrecting the Know Nothing Party.  I resisted writing about Mr. Trump because he has over saturated the media and there is not much more to say that has not already been said.  Every outrageous thing he says or does is covered and nothing seems to slow his drive to the Republican nomination.

Equally confounding are the Republican leaders that say they will support Mr. Trump as the nominee even as the call him a “con man” a “charlatan” and other monikers that one would think might keep them from supporting the bully.  Apparently “winning” for Republicans is more important than the country’s well-being.  Well done, Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) for saying that Mr. Trump is a danger to our nation and that you will never support him.  If only others that purport to disavow his statements would take a similar stand.

To date, there has been no substantive debate in any forum of Mr. Trump’s proposed policies or ideas on solving real problems other than vague assertions that it will be “great.”  This is no way to find that person most qualified to be president.  If there can be no substantive debate on the issues (and I do not doubt that Mr. Trump is an intelligent person, he is just woefully uninformed and to date has demonstrated no desire to learn), then we will see a campaign that is about as dirty as our country has seen in over a century.  Our only hope is that there will be no more debate over the size of Mr. Trump’s hands and what that means for his other physical attributes.

The reason that I am primarily writing about him (Senator Sanders is also unrealistic, but he is not unhinged) is two-fold.  I am very concerned about two classes of people who are emerging from this campaign.  Let me explain.

Mr. Trump appeals to a segment of society that has been well documented by the media and by the Trump campaign itself.  I do not need to talk about the fringe elements of his supporters.  I will say that I am not surprised that we have such people in the United States, but I am surprised that there are so many.  My concerns are about different groups of people.

I am increasingly coming across people who I know and respect, intelligent people, with high paying jobs, good upright citizens that say they plan to vote for Mr. Trump.  Their reasons vary but generally amount to a frustration that “regular” politicians need to be given a message that business as usual no longer cuts it and he seems to be the person that can really shake things up.  Usually they go on to say that former Secretary Hillary Clinton may be a better candidate, but they foresee that if the Republicans continue to control the Congress  that there will be four to eight more years of partisan fighting and gridlock and our nation’s needs will not be addressed.  Therefore, they will vote for Mr. Trump.  Scary. When asked about all his pronouncements that inherently trample the Constitution and are, frankly, un-American, they often reply that “he won’t really do that.”  Well, I say, I guess that means he is lying.  The response is often that all politicians lie to get in office and that he will “change” if elected.  Personally, I find no logic to this position because if he is not a politician, which is why they say they like him, then how come they think he will act like a politician once in office?  And if they think he will be like other politicians, then why vote for him?  Most importantly, we cannot take the chance.  He may actually do what he says.  The man seems to have no limits.

Equally concerning to me, are other bright, upstanding citizens that say if their only choices are Mr. Trump or Secretary Clinton, then they will not vote.  This is extremely dangerous.  Their protest will be a vain, misguided undertaking.  Someone will be president, like it or not.  Besides being an abdication of their duty as a citizen, they will most likely end up with a president they like less than the other person. Anecdotally, those that might otherwise vote for Secretary Clinton, but are rightly troubled by the baggage she carries, are the most likely to say they will not vote.  If that occurs, say hello to President Trump.

 

 

 

Party Like It’s 1852 Again

Posted: February 29, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 1 Comment

As the cliché goes, history often repeats itself.  1852 marked the effective end of the Whig Party, a political party that had elected four presidents and that generally favored the supremacy of Congress over the presidency, based on the Constitution.  It evolved for a while into the Know Nothing Party which was virulently anti-immigrant, especially against Catholic immigrants.  Eventually, mostly along regional lines over the issue of slavery, and forged by the Civil War, the modern Republican and Democrat parties emerged.

I am a strong believer in the two-party system.  In my lifetime, our country at times has veered right of center and left of center, depending on the election of one party over the other.  But I believe that the majority of Americans are moderate and centrist, with tendencies that cause them to lean left or right at various times over differing issues, but in the end, we mostly want to stay in the middle of the road.  We stay there without careening blindly over the cliff thanks to our two-party system.  It is self-correcting as one party or the other pulls its opponent back towards the middle when things start to get too wacky.  I am concerned that we are about to lose that balanced system as it appears to me that the Republican Party is about to self-destruct, much like the Whigs in the mid-19th century, over politicians and policies that no longer fit the main stream.  The reasons are many.

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday and by Wednesday morning we may wake up to the inevitability of Mr. Donald Trump (R-Manhattan) as the presumptive Republican nominee for president.  There is no need for me to list the many insults he has thrown at various groups around the country or to point out that he has no literate policy in any area of significance to this country other than to build a wall.  His nomination will create a dilemma for many main stream Republicans.  Support their nominee, chosen by the people and for the people, or not?  Whether or not individual voters continue to support him in the general election, he will have destroyed the Republican Party as we know it.  Even a cursory look at his statements (it is difficult to call them policies) indicate that he is all over the map on defense, foreign policy, healthcare, taxes, understanding the Constitution, trade, the economy and just about everything else. Few of his pronouncements match long-standing Republican policies.  Should he be elected, I am not sure how the rest of the Republican Party will align with his ideas, whether or not the Republicans continue to control both the House and the Senate.  (It may be hard for Republicans to hold onto the Senate with Mr. Trump at the top of their ticket.)  Those that think Mr. Trump will be better than any Democrat may be in for a rude awakening.  Regardless, under Mr. Trump, the Republican Party will not continue to exist as we know it today.

Couple the thought of Mr. Trump as president (gasp!) with current events in the House and Senate. In the House of Representatives, the compromise budget hammered out as former House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was being driven out of the Congress by his own party is now in jeopardy. The bipartisan agreement on the budget was to make 2016 non-controversial, get the Congress back to the business of running the country, and allow for other issues to get addressed in “regular order.” In the last few days, however, the Republican Freedom Caucus, a group of about 40 Tea Party Representatives that caused the revolt that resulted in the government shut down in 2013, are now threatening to do the same thing again this year.  They do not plan to follow the budget agreement that all sides thought was in place.  Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) is going to have his hands full dealing with this rebellion, just as Speaker Boehner did before him.  In many ways it is a battle within the Congress, among Republicans, as to the future of their party.

In the Senate, not much is getting accomplished.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) seems intent on shutting the government down through inaction.  So far, nothing of substance that President Obama put forward has been, or apparently will be, considered. Senator McConnell and his fellow Republicans have moved from just disagreeing with or opposing the president’s policies, to being down right insulting.  There are numerous examples as to how they are doing this to a “lame duck” president (for the record, an elected official is a lame duck only after an election where their replacement has been duly elected — not the full last year in office), but let me just throw out a few.

Earlier this month, the president sent his budget plan for fiscal year 2017 to the Congress. Before it officially arrived in the House and Senate, the Republican leadership rejected it in total.  Their prerogative of course, but one would think that they should actually take a look at it before rejecting it. However, that was not sufficient in their view.  For the first time in 41 years, the Congress did not even provide the courtesy of inviting the budget director to testify before Congress about what was in the plan. The Republican chairs of the respective budget committees announced before the budget was released that they would not invite the director to testify because they were not interested in knowing anything about what was in it.

Another example can be found in the video released last week by Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) where he makes a show of taking President Obama’s plan to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba and wadding it up into a ball and shooting it into the trash can without reading it.  One may disagree about the efficacy of closing the prison, but why make it into an insult?  (See: Trump, Donald.)

Biggest in the news, and the one that most worries me, is the refusal of the Senate leadership to abide any nomination by the president to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court following the untimely passing of Justice Antonin Scalia.  No nominee is named — but they already promise to refuse to provide even the most basic of traditional American political processes and will not meet with the nominee.  I have seen the tapes of then Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and then Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) saying during Republican presidential administrations that the president should not be allowed to nominate a justice in their last year as president.  Two things come to mind.  We seem to be on a giant national play ground so let me use a grade school admonition:  two wrongs don’t make a right.  More importantly, Senator Obama and Senator Biden never actually stopped a nominee from coming before the Senate.  They may have voted against some, but they did not stop them and they certainly did not prevent the process from playing out as it should.  If Republicans do not like the nominee, fine.  Don’t vote for the person.  But to be rude and insulting by refusing to meet with and provide due consideration is ridiculous.  It is their job — do it.   It is also bad politics.  Think about it.

The country is angry and about to nominate Donald Trump as a major party nominee.  Much of that anger is directed at the Senate and House for not doing their jobs.  It seems that strategically and tactically Senator McConnell is off base.  No Republican needs to vote for any nominee (although if qualified, they should follow American tradition and do so) but by not allowing any nominee to be vetted in the Senate, they play right into the Democrat’s hands.  Talk about rallying the Democrat’s base — this will do it and probably lead to some incumbent Republican Senators losing their re-election campaigns. Follow the process, use the system to their advantage, keep the seat vacant but do it by following the rules.  I am not sure what he is thinking unless he is afraid that some Republicans might actually vote for the president’s nominee if that person is qualified.  What a tragedy that would be.

Senator McConnell’s thinking is also short-sighted.  To satisfy the base now, he is willing to take a chance on the future.  President Obama would likely nominate a moderate to the Supreme Court this year because he knows  that is the only way his nominee has any chance at all to be confirmed.  What kind of nominee will a President Trump put forward?  Does Senator McConnell think that a President Clinton will put up a nominee more to his liking?  Hardly. (Fantasy:  President Clinton nominates Barack Obama for the empty Supreme Court seat.  Now that would be something to behold.) If Senator McConnell wants to see a more moderate nominee, his best chance is now, not after the election. Especially as his argument is that “the people” should have their say — well they will, and both presumptive presidential nominees are surely likely to put forward someone less palatable to the Senate.

(History lesson:  Chief Justice John Marshall, perhaps one of the greatest to sit in that chair, was nominated by John Adams in late January 1801 — months after the election of Thomas Jefferson as president.  The Senate confirmed him and he took the bench on the 4th of February, one month before President Adams left office.  President Jefferson accepted the appointment because the Constitution gives the president and the Senate the power to appoint members of the court.  Nothing in the Constitution says anything about “lame ducks” which in this case, both the president and some members of the Senate most certainly were.  These are the “Founding Fathers” that so many now refer to as the justification for their actions.  These Founding Fathers knew the Constitution, were certainly “originalists,” and guess what?)

Why do I think this is important to Republicans and that they should change their approach? Because taken together, and in conjunction with other similar events and the mood of the nation, the soul of the party is at risk.  I worry that the back lash, and continued infighting within the party, will destroy or at least splinter the current Republican Party.  Whether that new political entity will be better or worse than what exists now, I certainly cannot say.  However, I am concerned about another Know Nothing Party emerging, for however short of a time.  Without two strong mainstream political parties, both vibrant and reflecting the core values of our nation, we will lose our way in the middle of the road and careen recklessly off of it and over a cliff.

 

 

How Far Can We Drive the Country to Ruin?

Posted: February 14, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Justice Antonin Scalia died sometime during the night Friday, reportedly of natural causes. Whatever one thought of his very conservative view of the law — based on what is often called an “originalist” view, or one where the original words as written are the law, not what the intent might have been or changes in community standards might be — he was also reported by those who knew him to be brilliant, funny and a good friend.  I extend my condolences to his family and friends who are surely reeling from the shock.  Although I rarely agreed with his votes or opinions, one can still recognize his innate kindness and abilities.

Unfortunately, such understanding of individuals as individuals, and their inherent abilities, does not extend to the Republicans in the United States Senate.  While one might understand the opinion of those on the campaign trail vying for the presidency — all of whom think that they will one day be president and should have the ability to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court — I do not understand the majority leader of  the Senate claiming that the president has no right to appoint a replacement for Justice Scalia. Only an hour or so after the announcement of Justice Scalia’s death, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) announced that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”  Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) echoed Senator McConnell’s call to wait until the next president is sworn in.  This is significant as Senator Grassley is the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and can prevent a vote on a nominee within the committee and thereby prevent the entire Senate from voting.

I point out that a divided Senate confirmed Ronald Reagan’s nomination of then U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Scalia to the Supreme Court by a vote of 98-0.  Things were not perfect in the Senate then, but it was still the era where if a nominee was eminently qualified, like them or not, the president’s pick was his pick.

This unprecedented and outrageous stunt announced by Senators McConnell and Grassley has many ramifications and probable consequences.  One can only surmise that the personal animosity towards President Obama is so strong, that all of those Senate Republicans who espouse following the Constitution as their guiding light seem to have missed the part about the Supreme Court.

First, let’s simply look at the calendar.  If a new president knew exactly who his or her nominee was going to be and announced it the day that he/she is sworn in as president on 20 January 2017, and assuming the modern average of about 67 days for confirmation hearings and votes, we would still not have a new Justice until roughly the end of March or early April 2017.  About 13 or 14 months from now! Talk about the slow wheels of the legislative process.  It is also unprecedented in our nation’s modern history.  Not to mention that it leaves many important cases coming before the court this year susceptible to a 4-4 tie vote.  More on that later.  If this happened in September, then it might be reasonable to wait, but it is only mid-February, with about a year left in office for President Obama.  Is he to do nothing until next January?  Does he have no right to execute his office under the Constitution? It would be unprecedented for a sitting president to abdicate his Constitutional powers to the demands of the legislative body and turn over his power to appoint justices to the Senate. The Senate’s job is to “advise and consent” to presidential nominees, not to hijack presidential powers.  Let them work with the White House and see if there is a compromise candidate for the court.  Let each branch do what it is designed to do.  Senator McConnell and other Republicans argue that elections have consequences.  I agree. We elected President Obama to do a job.  Twice.  He should do it.

Second, the Senate Majority Leader’s announced plan to block any nomination from the president presumes that the individual is not qualified, merely by the fact that President Obama nominates that person.  And they do not know who the nominee will be.  I sincerely hope and expect that the president goes ahead with a nomination and decides to “leave it to the American people” (the catch phrase of choice for so many of the obstructionists) to see who is following the Constitution and doing their job. And it’s not exactly like the Senate calendar is jammed or packed with other pending legislation.  Take a look and it is apparent that the Senate has plenty of time to fairly proceed with the process. (You can find the proposed calendar here.  Note that being in session doesn’t mean they are actually working as most come in from their home states on Tuesday morning and go home on Friday.)  To block a nomination when the nominee is unknown makes no sense. Hold hearings.  Vet the nominee.  Find out how qualified that person may be and then vote. Making demagogic pronouncements within an hour of the loss of a Justice is ridiculous.

Third, there is a presumption in the Republican Senator’s actions that the next president will be a Republican.  Perhaps.  The next president could also be a Democrat. Does the Senate think that it will just wait another four years for another presidential election to fill the vacancy?

Fourth, the practical impact of not filling the vacancy for over a year could be tremendous and further divide our already politically divided country.  A 4-4 tie vote in the Supreme Court leaves lower court decisions in place.  This has many possible consequences.  The Supreme Court is set to make many important decisions in the upcoming year with scheduled cases including ones impacting abortion, The Affordable Care Act, one-person one-vote, affirmative action and a host of others.  We the people may not like what those lower cases decide and want the Supreme Court to weigh in.  In a 4-4 tie they have no impact.

More importantly, many Supreme Court cases are taken on because lower courts often pass down conflicting judgments.  For example, if the U.S. Ninth Court of Appeals (the western U.S. including California) hands down one decision, and the Eleventh (the southeast including Florida) hands down a conflicting decision, which is the rule of the land? One nation of law-abiding citizens is no longer the case as the “law of the land” is different depending on where one lives.  One function of the Supreme Court is to pull disparate court decisions together for a unified interpretation of the law. Such a scenario of conflicting opinions is not out of the realm of possibility when it will be over a year before the Supreme Court is at full strength.

I am many things, but I am not a political strategist.  However it seems to me that the Senate Republican’s strategy to stonewall the president on nearly everything, but especially on the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice could backfire.  Congress is already considered by many of us to be doing nothing to help the American people.  Prognosticators say that depending on who the two major party nominees are, that Republican control of the Senate could be in jeopardy.  It seems to me that if the voters do not see their Senators doing much of anything for a year, coupled with a few of the lower court decisions becoming the law of the land in a series of 4-4 votes in the Supreme Court, that some are going to take it out on their sitting Senators, especially in “blue” or “purple” states where Republican incumbents will be challenged by strong Democrats in the fall.

We will see how things actually unfold.  I am not optimistic that the Senate will move forward and conduct the business that we elected them to do.  Now not only will we have a divided legislative process, but the complete lack of cooperation between the Senate and the president will be exacerbated by a potentially hog-tied Supreme Court.  Hog-tied only due to the personal animosity towards the president, which apparently takes precedence over actually doing their job.

It will be a long, poisonous year.  I comfort myself in knowing that in our history we have been through some extremely divisive internal crises (Civil War anyone?) and come out the stronger for it. I hope that we enter 2017 with a new sense of purpose.  It is a shame that we will have to waste an entire year first.

 

Game On!

Posted: February 3, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.

Stephen Sondheim — “Send in the Clowns”

It is unclear what to make of Monday’s Iowa caucus results.  Analysts and pundits are busy parsing it in many directions.  So far I have heard that Hillary Clinton’s win was really a loss, Marco Rubio’s third place finish was a win, Bernie Sanders pulled out the biggest upset, Ted Cruz really knew how to do “retail politics” and Donald Trump is not unstoppable.  I suppose all of that means we can make of the results whatever we wish.

There are a few things that are apparent.  Projections, pundits and potential are all mostly in the past now that real people are voting.  The game is on.  On to New Hampshire.  There is no clear front-runner in either party even though various candidates would like to think that they are the inevitable nominee for their respective parties.

Perhaps we also know (or hope) that the reality show atmosphere of the Republican debates will be a thing of the past. Perhaps the clown show is finally over.  (Time out:  You may remember that Donald Trump boycotted last week’s debate on Fox News.  We will never know if that hurt him or helped him — many argue the latter because he would be asked some difficult questions.  Ever the entrepeneur Mr. Trump opined that they should pay him for his appearance as he was such a boon to ratings for the network, and felt that the questions asked him were “unfair” — even as Fox News claims it is the only network that is “fair and balanced.”  If I were a cynical conspiracy theorist, I would opine that it was actually a back room deal between Fox and Mr. Trump to boost ratings for each of them by creating a mock feud.  But I must stop myself from slipping into the slime that is unworthy of the citizens of our great country.)  Perhaps the next debates will be more substantive, but in truth, without Mr. Trump there, the last Republican debate was the most policy driven one they have held thus far.

There are a few things to keep in mind about the “winning and losing” that often get lost.  In no particular order these include:

  • Caucus goers in Iowa are not representative of the voters nationally.  For both Democrats and Republicans they tend to skew farther to the edges of their respective parties.  The last two winners of the Republican caucuses were former Governor Mike Huckabee and former Senator Rick Santorum.  Neither were much of a factor in later primaries.
  • The “winner” in the Republican caucus was Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who got 8 delegates. In second place Mr. Donald Trump (R-Manhattan) got 7 and in third place Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) got 7 delegates.  Out of 1,237 needed to gain the nomination.  (For the record, Dr. Ben Carson (R-Johns Hopkins) got 3 and Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasich each got one.  Chris Christie got zero, along with Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, “other” and Jim Gilmore — “other” actually got more votes than Jim Gilmore.)  The “winner” got about six tenths of one percent — less than one percent — of the total needed for the nomination.
  • The “winner” for the Democrats, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got 23 delegates and the runner-up, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) got 21.  Former governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD) got no delegates but he did finish ahead of “other” and “uncommitted” in the voting.  Out of 2,382 delegates needed to get the nomination, the “winner” got about one percent of the total needed.

(Time out number two:  Out of the roughly 314 million citizens of the United States, these fifteen people are the best our nation has to offer?  No offense to any one of the candidates that have put themselves out there to run (well, maybe offense to two or three of them), but whoever ends up being the two nominees do not to me look like the best that we can do.)

One thing is clear, the economy of Iowa benefits from hosting the first test of the candidates among the voters.  I am not so sure the rest of us get much benefit from it.

The real impact of the caucus is the psychological aspects of winning or losing.  Especially this year. Given the number and variety of candidates running, many voters are undecided and more importantly to the candidates, many major donors have been sitting out this cycle waiting to see who is a viable candidate with a shot at winning, you know, the real election.  Additionally, some candidates found out that they have no realistic shot.  (Farewell Governor Huckabee, Governor O’Malley, and Senator Paul. All “suspended” their campaigns after Iowa.)

The rules of the Iowa caucus, for both Democrats and Republicans are a bit arcane.  I won’t go into them here, but even as one may argue that Iowa does not represent the country as a whole with respect to race, ethnicity, socio-economic factors, etc. it is also difficult to participate in the caucus. None-the-less, it is what it is and it does provide a chance to start narrowing the field.

Up next, New Hampshire.  While that state also may not reflect the make up of the rest of the population of this great nation, at least the good citizens of the Granite State cast a real ballot at a polling booth. What makes New Hampshire interesting is that independents can vote in either the Republican or the Democrat primary (but not both).  Expect more Republican candidates to suspend their campaigns after New Hampshire, especially those that only paid lip service to the Iowa caucus and put most of their effort into New Hampshire and still make a poor showing.

That said, I am not in the prognosticating business so I will not venture a guess as to who decides to retire from the field. I also am sure that we will still have a large field for a few more weeks.  At a minimum, however, it should start to reveal who has a realistic shot at being their party’s nominee.

Perhaps by early March, we can send out the clowns.

 

Happy New Year and Good Luck in 2016

Posted: December 31, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | 1 Comment

As 2015 comes to a close, I wish each of you a wonderful new year in 2016 and hope that our country comes through the coming elections in better shape than what I fear may be the case given our experience over this past year.

I am normally an optimistic, the glass is half-full kind of guy, but I am discouraged by the political discourse of the last few months.  I am concerned that it will only get worse in the new year.  The rhetoric is depressing and may become more so as some candidates find that it works to their advantage to vilify others, and as some candidates become desperate to be noticed before they fade away.

I also learned long ago to stay out of the prediction game.  With the right knowledge and experience, it used to be feasible to make a meaningful, if not always correct, educated guess as to the direction of certain events and the resulting policy decisions that follow.  I do not feel that way anymore. Additionally, as I have expressed in previous pieces, I think that it is too early to begin discussing which candidates from which political parties will be our choices in November.  I have no idea who will make it through the spring and summer and emerge as a viable candidate.  Therefore, at this point in the process, I have no idea who I will vote for and I will try to keep my mind open as the campaigns progress.  That said, I have already decided who I cannot vote for no matter their popularity or the alternative candidate from the other party.  Out of the roughly 15 candidates combined in the Republican and Democrat parties still running (and sometimes it is hard to keep track) there are at least five that I know that I cannot vote for, no matter what.  Some fall into that category because of their hateful rhetoric and others because in my view, they are just plain unqualified to lead this country. Some fall into both categories.  Hopefully, they will not end up running against each other.

Logically, and historically, I know that we have experienced shameful demagoguery in campaigns past.  I know also that our nation’s history has had shameful periods of racism and bigotry that were considered main stream.  And as much as I would like to think that as a nation we have moved past those misguided beliefs, I know that some racists and bigots still exist in our country.

So the politics of racism, bigotry, hatred and fear — dealing in the mysterious “other” who are not like us and do not belong in our country — is, unfortunately, not new to this nation.  We now have at least two leading candidates, Mr. Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), that are experts at exploiting the fear and hatred of others and who also have little use for the truth should it not coincide with their narrative.  They seem to be very popular — although it is difficult to know whether that popularity will translate at the voting booth.  While I am deeply disappointed in their campaigns, it is really nothing new in our history.  What has truly discouraged me is the number of people who pollsters of all stripes tell us support their campaigns.  I knew there were bigots and racists out there, what is discouraging is the number that seem still to exist in the year 2015. And before someone gets their hair on fire, I recognize that not all supporters of Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz are bigots or racists.  I know that. However, too many seem to fit in that category.  By a lot. Anger and fear are powerful motivators, but when exploited for purely personal gain, it becomes dangerous.  Both Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz are well polished exploiters of those emotions.  I see their hateful ways reflected in all sorts of social media and other outlets.  Although I am never sure if the anonymity of social media creates more salacious comments “just because” — “trolls” that enjoy stirring things up — or if the anonymity of social media allows people to expose what is really in their hearts without fear of being considered haters, but whichever is the case, Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz through their speech and actions, make it okay to be anti-social.

Please spare me the accusations of “political correctness.”  For these two candidates (and others) claiming that they do not have to be politically correct has become a crutch.  It is an anti-intellectual and facile claim that assures that no substantive discussion of the issues is needed and that to be polite and not rude in political discourse is not necessary.  We are the worse for it.  Bigots and racists are given free rein to malign others.

Before Christmas, Danielle Allen wrote an interesting opinion piece about “political correctness.”  (It can be found here.)  The term, according to Professor Allen was first coined by James Wilson in 1793.  James Wilson was a representative to the Continental Congress and an influential member of the committee that gave us the Constitution and was one of the original Justices of the Supreme Court.  The first substantive case heard by the new court was Chisolm v. State of Georgia which established that individuals could sue states.  The decision was later effectively over-turned by the Eleventh Amendment. (I am not a legal scholar, but should one want to read an interesting analysis of the case, it may be found here.)  What is pertinent to this discussion, is that the rhetoric following a lazy interpretation of “politically correct” has subverted the original use of the phrase.  In some ways it may be better said as “correct politically” or Justice Wilson’s emphasis on “We the People” and his belief that sovereignty rested with the “people of the United States” rather than individual states.

This interpretation was presaged by a speech of his on July 4th 1788 following the achievement of the minimum number of states needed to ratify the Constitution.  In his speech he laid out the vision of the crafters of that great document, its importance and how it is up to us, the people, to vote for good leaders.  He emphasized how each vote was important (perhaps because his was the deciding vote for independence in the Pennsylvania delegation).  Or as he said in part in his stem-winder of a speech (original spellings used below, italics and bold are mine):

Allow me to direct your attention, in a very particular manner, to a momentous part, which, by this constitution, every citizen will frequently be called to act. All those in places of power and trust will be elected either immediately by the people; or in such a manner that their appointment will depend ultimately on such immediate election. All the derivative movements of government must spring from the original movement of the people at large. If, to this they give a sufficient force and a just direction, all the others will be governed by its controuling power. To speak without a metaphor; if the people, at their elections, take care to chuse none but representatives that are wise and good; their representatives will take care, in their turn, to chuse or appoint none but such as are wise and good also. The remark applies to every succeeding election and appointment. Thus the characters proper for public officers will be diffused from the immediate elections of the people over the remotest parts of administration. Of what immense consequence is it, then, that this primary duty should be faithfully and skillfully discharged? On the faithful and skillful discharge of it the public happiness or infelicity, under this and every other constitution, must, in a very great measure, depend. For, believe me, no government, even the best, can be happily administered by ignorant or vicious men. You will forgive me, I am sure, for endeavouring to impress upon your minds, in the strongest manner, the importance of this great duty. It is the first concoction in politics; and if an error is committed here, it can never be corrected in any subsequent process: The certain consequence must be disease. Let no one say, that he is but a single citizen; and that his ticket will be but one in the box. That one ticket may turn the election.

In other words, no government, no matter how well conceived and designed, can function properly unless good, educated, and competent people — not “ignorant or vicious men” — are elected.  The government is only as good as those elected to it.  In my view, we lost that principal and fundamental element to good governance with the likes of Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz.

 

 

Fearing Fear Itself

Posted: November 20, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away.

Buffalo Springfield – Somethings Happening Here Lyrics

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4038 known as the Security Against Foreign Enemies Act (SAFE — get it?  They are so clever.) The bill effectively keeps Syrian and Iraqi refugees out of the United States.  Arguably, it doesn’t automatically stop them from entering, but it puts in place restrictions that virtually guarantee that they cannot come to the United States.  I, for one, feel no safer. I am much more concerned about taking my family to the movies and being blown away by an American with a semi-automatic weapon.

Among the reasons that I am very disappointed in the House rush to “do something” and to claim that it makes “every American safer” is that I find it laughable that they think this has any practical impact other than to make life more difficult for those fleeing oppression in Syria and Iraq.  There are many reasons that I think this bill is ineffective.

  • All but one of the perpetrators and supporters of the attack in Paris were Belgian and French citizens with Belgian and French passports.  Only one may have been Syrian — officials say that he is unidentified and that a fake Syrian passport was found near him.  He is believed to have come through Greece with the refugee flow, but could just as easily be Libyan, Egyptian, Afghani or a number of other Middle Eastern nationalities.
  • The House did not hold any, any, hearings on the bill, did not allow any amendments (contrary to Speaker Ryan’s promises when he took office that all bills would follow “regular order”), and there was no, none, nada, consultation with the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department, FBI,  CIA or the Director of National Intelligence.
  • Any terrorist from any nation who as an individual is not on a watch list can enter the United States on a European, Asian or many, many other national passports without any problem.  The SAFE Act does not change that.  Perhaps there should be a comprehensive evaluation of our passport and visa policies rather than a knee jerk reaction that has no practical impact in stopping other terrorists from entering the United States.
  • It makes us look weak and ineffective to our enemies in the Middle East.  Rather than demonizing people fleeing oppression and religious persecution (thousands more Muslims have been killed by ISIS for their religion than have Christians) Congress should be debating the appropriate military actions necessary to secure the homeland. Inducing paranoia in our citizens by claiming a massive threat when the likelihood of an attack from Syrian refugees allowed into the United States after 18-24 months is about non-existent and certainly less than the danger posed by thousands of gun deaths in the US every year.
  • Congress should be debating the request from President Obama made last February to authorize military actions against ISIS and other terrorists in the Middle East.  Somehow Congress cannot get around to acting on that because no one seems to be able to agree on what should be done and for how long.  But the President must do something!  Even though we do not know what that might be that he should do.
  • A cynical interpretation would be that Congress knows the President will veto the bill.  When the inevitable terrorist attack occurs in the United States, from whatever faction, the blame game will begin that the president “allowed” it to happen.  To me, combating terrorism should be the last place that we play politics.
  • I could go on, but unfortunately, most Americans seem to be glad that we are now soooo much safer with the passage of H.R. 4038.

Adding to the hysteria are our leading Republican candidates for President.  For President.  It is difficult for me to type that.  Mr. Donald Trump over the last few days has said that as president, he may be forced to:

  • Close all mosques in the United States.
  • Create a data base holding the names and presumably addresses of all Muslims in the United States.
  • Require all Muslims in the United States to carry an identification card that has their religion identified on it.
  • Require all Muslims in the United States to pin a red crescent to their chests whenever they venture out in public.  Okay, I made that last one up, but why not take a page out of history and do that?  It is a logical fourth step in line with his proposals.

Meanwhile among his many informed statements, Dr. Ben Carson, second in line as a possible Republican candidate for president, likened the Syrian refugees to dogs.  I wonder if this analogy was deliberate because one of the greatest insults in the Middle East is to compare one to a dog.  Perhaps he is trying to fuel more hate and anger in the Middle East?  Perhaps he is trying to help gain new recruits for ISIS?  I cannot know what his intent was, but I am afraid that he did not have a conscious intent.  I think it is just another example of an individual that is brilliant at what he does, basically a good man, but that is out of his comfort zone and has no clue when it comes to understanding what it is to be President of the United States.  Words matter and as president, they matter a lot.

As for those presidential aspirants that argue we should only let in Christian refugees, why stop there? Why not only allow in Christians with blond hair and blue eyes?

Look.  I am not naive.  We need to take a good hard look at our security procedures, intelligence capabilities, social media skills, passport policies and a host of other measures to ensure that we are as safe as it is possible to be.  We need to stop them in their tracks.  However, this is isn’t our first rodeo and since September 11, 2001 our security professionals have become very adept at keeping us safe. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees. Congress should really be spending its time doing what it is supposed to be doing — that is providing oversight to the federal agencies tasked with keeping us safe and making sure that all that can possibly be done, within the Constitution, is done.  They should also oversee improvements in our security posture that can be attained as technology changes. We need to adapt to the changing environment and the changing tactics of our adversaries.  What we should not be doing is going off half-cocked with ineffective measures that do nothing to improve our safety but do a lot in making our enemies look better than they really are.  Not to mention challenging our basic freedoms as citizens of the United States.

We Are Playing Right Into Their Hands

Posted: November 17, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 3 Comments

Sad.  Outrageous.  Horrifying.  Anger inducing.  Numbing.  These are some of the feelings I have had, just as I am sure many of you share, following the terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday.  Horrible. Unfortunately, I have similar reactions to the politicians in our United States who either have no clue as to what they are talking about, or are purposefully using this tragedy for political purposes.  Those same politicians accuse others of “politicizing” a tragedy following a mass shooting when they speak out for gun safety laws and yet they have no problem politicizing a tragic terrorist attack.  Their comments are to me nearly as terrifying as the attacks themselves.

There are several issues at play here, and a twitter post or sound bite will not reflect the complexities of the situation.  First and foremost one must remember that the purpose of terror is to create fear and a resultant over reaction that causes us to change our way of life or to take some action that meets the terrorists’ long-term goal.  Make no mistake, despite some statements to the contrary, the terrorists have a clear purpose and a clear goal beyond just taking as many lives as possible.  This is one area where the reckless statements by some running for president play right into the hands of the terrorists.

Additionally, one must understand the strategic goals of these particular terrorists who appear to be associated, if not directly controlled, by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  Creating the “caliphate” or fundamentalist nation that they have declared is not an end unto itself just as the terrorist attacks are not an end.  Their vision — and we must understand them from their perspective not ours — is to cause the apocalyptic battle of the West versus the caliphate.  In other words, they really, really, want the United States and European forces to invade their territory in order to precipitate the clash of civilizations.  They believe that the result will be cataclysmic and result in the end of the world as we know it and establish a world dominated by them.

This is an important point and necessitates taking the long view.  This is a clash of ideologies.  This is a clash of world views.  This is a clash of civilizations.  I make those statements with no sense of drama or over reach.  It is a fact and one that the arm-chair quarterbacks and “bomb them to the stone age” activists do not understand.  If every member of ISIS was killed on Wednesday in their caliphate, the terrorists still would have attacked on Friday and others would come in to take their place.  This is a long war that will not be resolved solely by military action.

Am I saying that no military action is necessary?  No.  We need to take military action and we need to take the fight to ISIS.  What I am saying is that such action is necessary, but not sufficient. Clearly ISIS established their ability to reach beyond the caliphate.  The bombing of the Russian airliner over the Sinai, the bombings in Beirut and now the attack in Paris are certainly ISIS efforts to show that forces that oppose them will be attacked.  However, since we are also dealing on a psychological and ideological level, there are other aspects to those attacks and it very well may be that they are also a result of what the president observed last week prior to the attacks.  Not directly related as in retaliation or defiance, but that the facts are related. He said ISIS is “contained.” While this remark is getting shrill ridicule from presidential aspirants, he may be right.  The caliphate is shrinking geographically, the number of recruits seems to be dwindling, and more nations are joining the fight against them.  Under that circumstance, ISIS leaders would need to demonstrate that they are still strong and provide more fodder for gaining recruits. Additionally, without going into a history of the western world, the ISIS ideology and their pronouncements are reflective of their perception that Europe squashed the spread of Islam in the Eighth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, to name a few of the ideological underpinnings of ISIS and jihadist culture in general.  This is in essence revenge for historical defeats and a demonstration that the war to spread Islam is not over.

I want leaders that understand just how complicated the resolution of this mess will be and in this piece I have only touched the tip of the iceberg of all that is in play.  I want sober leaders, not emotional, uninformed individuals that over-react, or worse, pander for political purposes.  I want leaders that have emotions — which one of us does not react with emotion to events in Paris — but that do not act emotionally. Sending the men and women of our Armed Forces into harms way should not be a knee jerk reaction.  And once again, for all our sakes, just stop it with talking about “boots on the ground”!  That has no meaning and tends to show one’s lack of understanding of how the military works.  Do they mean combat troops?  Advisors?  Logisticians?  Intelligence capabilities?  Marines? Army?  What do they mean?  We must also never forget that by using the term “boots on the ground” we take out the human aspect.  Somehow saying “boots on the ground” removes the obligation of our leaders to understand the consequences of sending our fellow citizens into a situation where inevitably some will be killed and seriously wounded with the consequential impact on their family and friends — not to mention the loss of our nation’s future leaders.  These decisions should never be taken lightly or out of some misplaced desire to show how tough they are.  Nearly all the proposals I have seen from the flock of presidential wannabe’s are amateurish at best, or fraught with danger to our nation at their worst (with the specific exception of Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina whose proposals I am not 100% in agreement with, but at least he has a sober and thought-out plan.) By the way, none of those folks will be in office until about 14 months from now.  It is sure a lot easier to say what should be done than to be the person responsible for actually making the decision. They show their ignorance when they do things like point to the “massive French response” and say that we should do the same.  The “massive” response is twelve (count them, twelve) aircraft bombing shacks in the desert.  The United States and coalition does more than that on a slow day and have been for over a year.  ISIS will not be defeated from the air.  No fly zones make no sense either, as several have proposed, because ISIS has no aircraft.  A no fly zone will bring us into direct conflict with Syrian aircraft (which we may want but such a decision should not be made in the heat of emotion), and with Russian aircraft (we are not fighting the Russians).  I could go on, but you get the idea.  We definitely do need to step up the military pressure on ISIS, especially on the ground, but we need to realize that it is easier said than done and we need to make sure we know what we are doing. Military experts always ask “what is the next step?” and “what is the end game?” and “what does it look like when we are successful?” — none of those specific questions have been answered by advocates of a bigger U.S. military effort and their plans have only very non-specific terms.

I am most bewildered, flabbergasted and profoundly disappointed by the calls from Republican candidates for president and the twenty-five (at last count — twenty-four Republicans and one Democrat) state governors who say that they will “outlaw” Syrian refugees, or indeed any Muslim refugees from settling in the United States.  It is doubtful that they have the legal authority to “outlaw” refugees, but more troubling is that they even propose it.  This is perhaps more dangerous to the future of the United States than the attacks in Paris.  It would also be a tremendous victory for ISIS should we “outlaw” Muslims in the United States. It proves their narrative that the West is “against” Islam.  ISIS also does not want to see those refugees leave their caliphate.  It ruins their narrative and gives them no basis to govern.

Most troubling are the cheers for the leading Republican candidate Mr. Donald Trump when he calls for a “deportation force” to round-up 11 million people from their homes and force them out of the country. Enforce immigration laws, certainly.  Work towards some form of comprehensive immigration reform, certainly.  But round-up 11 million people by force?  Really?  In the United States?  Over the weekend he went several steps further by declaring no Muslim refugees should enter the country — and oh by the way, when he’s president he will have those already legally here deported — but he also said that if he were president he would “strongly consider” shutting down mosques in the United States.  So much for the Constitution.

Even more troubling is that Mr. Trump was not alone in his demagoguery.  Governor Jeb Bush and Senator Ted Cruz said we should only allow “Christians” into the country.  As if we have a litmus test on religion as to who can come into the country.  Bye Bye Constitution.  Governor Chris Christie said he would not allow any refugees into the country, “even for orphans under the age of five.”  Nice.

Clearly they do not remember the glorious chapters of our nation’s history such as rounding up Native Americans and forcing them onto reservations or rounding up Japanese Americans and placing them in internment camps, or refusing to allow Jewish refugees into the country in the late 1930s.

It also belies the facts.  Safety is a concern, obviously.  Should they have looked into the issue more closely, instead of just shooting their mouths off for the sake of some votes, they would see that the situation for refugees coming into our country are vastly different from Europe.  Light years different. Europe is being inundated by refugees leaving the Middle East.  We are not.  Unless they can swim the Atlantic Ocean refugees allowed into the United States are carefully vetted, consist almost entirely of families with women and children, and take about 18 months from the beginning of the process until they arrive in this country.  They should also know that so far, all but one of the Paris attackers was from France and Belgium.

I might also point out that refusing to take in refugees does not make us any safer as anyone with a valid passport that is not on a watch list can get into the country.  Do these politicians want to stop all foreigners from coming in to the country?  Some apparently do.  Senator Rand Paul introduced legislation yesterday that prevents anyone from roughly 30 countries that have a “high risk” of terrorism or significant jihadist movements from entering the country (which would include France, by the way) and imposes a 30 day moratorium on anyone from any country entering the United States until the government verifies that no terrorists can enter the country from anywhere on earth using a passport. So much for the world economy when all movement is shut down.  I suppose that the specifics of how that works is similar to what my old calculus books used to say, “the proof is left to the reader.” Or better yet as they say on “Monday Night Football” — “c’mon man!”  All of which ignores actions such as those of Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City where he killed 168 people and wounded over 600 others.  An American, a military veteran, and a Christian.

We do not need amateurs and demagogues leading our nation.

Should we increase our intelligence activities, be super aware and learn to operate in the new reality of life with terrorism in the 21st century?  Of course.  Do we need to re-think our anti-ISIS strategy and consider increased military involvement?  Of course.  However, I have serious problems with the politicization of the issue and the glaring lack of specifics from most candidates.  And most of what I have heard proposed plays right into the hands of the terrorists.  Besides, it is un-American.

 

A Road Map For Success

Posted: November 2, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Today President Obama signed a two-year budget deal passed by the House and Senate last week in a bipartisan deal to get the nation through and beyond the election of 2016.  Indeed, it is called the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.  It accomplishes several things.  Foremost among them is that it suspends the nation’s debt ceiling until March of 2017, taking that issue off the table until after the next president is sworn into office. Additionally, it provides relief from the Budget Control Act of 2013. That is the bill that set spending levels for domestic and defense programs that many thought were too severe.  It has become known as the “sequester bill”  putting arbitrary limits on spending.

This is a good deal — not perfect for either Republicans or Democrats — because we would have hit our debt limit tomorrow (3 November) with the distinct possibility of a major financial crisis as a result. It also provides for increases in defense and domestic spending above the sequester limits. Perhaps more importantly, it provides a two-year deal that will finally give some stability to military and other planning and allow for more long-term investments, rather than living weeks or months at a time on Continuing Resolutions (CR) that may or may not be held hostage for political reasons each time they come up for renewal.  The CRs provided the ever-present opportunity to threaten a default or a government shutdown should certain minority demands not be met.

There are of course other provisions in the 144 page bill addressing a number of issues, but perhaps the most important of the other provisions is a fix for Medicare to keep premiums from rising drastically and a provision to keep the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund solvent through 2022.

It also shows that members of both parties in the House and Senate can work together and actually accomplish meaningful results.  To me, this reinforces my belief that many of our nation’s problems can be solved with moderate Republicans and Democrats working together to compromise on important legislation rather than letting the extremes of either party hold the rest of the body hostage.

From a political standpoint, this may be the last gift from the former Speaker of the House John Boehner to the rest of us.  Given his imminent retirement, he was freed from having to negotiate with the Freedom Caucus — the group of 30 or 40 Tea Party conservatives in the House — and could get sufficient bipartisan support for it to pass.  The Senate recognized a solution when it stared them in the face and ignored objections by Senator Ted Cruz (R – Texas), another Tea Party favorite and Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky).  Both are running for president as “outsiders” and condemn the leadership of both parties in Washington.  I suppose the bill gave them another meaningless grand standing opportunity to make it look like they are “standing up” to Washington when they knew full well that the bill would pass anyway.

While this is a major milestone — even as one might argue that doing the nation’s most basic business should not be a “milestone” — there are obstacles ahead.  It is too early to sing kumbaya as we all hold hands around the campfire.

The new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has promised to use the Hastert Rule in bringing bills to the floor of the House.  The Hastert Rule is named for the now disgraced (he is on his way to jail) former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois).  Basically, it is a “majority of the majority” rule whereby a Speaker will not bring a bill for a vote if it is not guaranteed that the majority of the party will vote for it. Speaker Boehner often invoked this same rule.  What it does, is give groups such as the Freedom Caucus inordinate power within the House of Representatives to veto any legislation that they do not like, regardless of the ability otherwise to get a majority of the Representatives to vote for a given bill.

Speaker Ryan may be a new face and a respected leader.  I hope that he is able to get the House working again.  Unfortunately, he seems to have already tied his own hands by promising over the weekend that he would  continue to use the Hastert Rule, thus again inordinately empowering the minority of Tea Party Republicans in the House.

Another reason to keep from breaking out in song is that the deal is not done.  The bill that President Obama signed today is really only a framework for work yet to be done.  Because the legislature and White House could not reach a deal prior to the start of the new fiscal year, the nation’s business is currently conducted under a Continuing Resolution that keeps things going only until 11 December this year.  The CR is based on the sequester spending caps and there are some in the House and Senate that believe those caps should stay in place regardless of the just concluded compromise. As we all know from our civics classes, the budget is meaningless until the Congress passes Appropriations Bills (to say exactly how much money goes where) and Authorization Bills (allowing the government to actually spend the money).  Normally those are passed in 12 individual bills to fund each area of government (Defense, Education, Homeland Security, etc.).  Given the time remaining (and the propensity for Congress to take weeks off for holidays such as Thanksgiving), it is likely that there will be an omnibus bill (all of them rolled up together in one big bill) to cover the ability to spend money to the new budget guidelines.  This will give those that oppose the agreement more time to undermine it, especially by adding amendments to the bill that have little to do with the subject at hand but are used because they know that the overall bill needs to be passed and thus their individual proposals get little scrutiny.  There is also the possibility that some of those amendments may be “poison pills” added to scuttle the agreement totally.  One example would be to add a rider totally defunding Planned Parenthood.  That would open up a new debate that could cause the 11 December deadline to pass and result in shutting down the government after all.  There are some presidential candidates that think that would be a very fine idea.  Only time will tell on how skilled House and Senate leaders are in moving forward.

For all us political junkies, last week there was further cause for hope that maybe the House could act in a bipartisan way for the good of the country.  Many Tea Party members in the House (and Senate) want to eliminate the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank).  Most moderate Republicans and Democrats see the bank as important to American commerce and small businesses.  Without going too far into the arcane rules of the House of Representatives, moderate Republicans utilized a little used rule to set up a petition, signed by enough Republicans and Democrats to force a vote on a bill that was previously held from the House floor by Speaker Boehner and the rest of the leadership as a “bone” to the Freedom Caucus.  The measure to restore the Ex-Im Bank passed on a vote of 313 to 118, (within the Republican Party the vote was 127 for and 117 against), demonstrating again that the majority can work together to accomplish common goals when the full House is able to cooperate. After debate, the Senate is also expected to pass the bill.

I hope that these two accomplishments are more than a mere flash in the pan but are instead a positive sign of things to come.  It does demonstrate that there is a road map that can lead to success when compromise is not considered a dirty word and our leaders work together to move our nation forward.

A Real Mess

Posted: October 11, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 1 Comment

Russian military involvement in Syria creates increased uncertainty in an already very uncertain region of the world.  Analysts are divided as to whether Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to send military forces to Syria is a show of strength or a show of weakness and desperation.  Either way, their involvement dramatically changes the situation.  Allegedly, the Russians joined the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, but also known as ISIL and DAESH depending on who is speaking —  they are all the same organization).  In reality they are attacking all anti-Bashar Al-Assad (the ruling dictator in Syria) forces, including those trained and supported by the United States and our allies in the region.

As is usually the case with President Putin in particular and other dictators more generally, he told the world exactly what he was going to do.  In a revealing “60 Minutes” interview on 27 September before the Russians acted in Syria he said,

“We support the legitimate government of Syria. And it’s my deep belief that any actions to the contrary in order to destroy the legitimate government will create a situation which you can witness now in the other countries of the region or in other regions, for instance in Libya where all the state institutions are disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq. And there is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism.”

In other words, any group fighting the current regime is working to destroy the current dictatorship and therefore they are all terrorists.  To him there is no difference between ISIS and the other groups trying to depose the current dictator.  Or as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in a later interview, “You know, if it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck, it’s a duck” in response to a question about defending the current Syrian regime against all-comers — to the Russians they are all terrorists.

As part of their ongoing air operations in Syria, on Wednesday last week the Russians fired approximately twenty-six cruise missiles from ships in the Caspian Sea into Syrian territory.  There was no tactical or operational reason to use cruise missiles in the way they were used in this instance.  Like much of what Russia is doing in the region, the real purpose of the launch was to appear to be a world power on the same level as the United States.  “If the US can do it, so can we” — a demonstration of technical ability — seemed to be the only reason for it.  (Incidentally, intelligence reports indicate that four to six of them crashed in Iran. Mishaps are not unheard of in using cruise missiles as they are not foolproof, but it clearly was not the “flawless” attack initially claimed by Russian propaganda.)

As a footnote it is interesting to see the Russians using the same social media and press releases of ships firing missiles, video of bombs hitting targets, etc. that the United States has employed for many years. I’m not sure if that is a matter of such measures being the best way to disseminate information or if it is a case of plagiarism as the sincerest form of flattery.  Regardless, the Russians are trying to demonstrate that they are every bit as capable as the United States.  A questionable claim when one digs through the superficial aspects of what they are doing and we really look at their capabilities and sustainability.  But for now, all they have to do is look like they know what they are doing.

Where does all of this leave us?  Certain facts on the ground remain unchanged.  Bashar Al-Assad is still only hanging on to a small amount of territory under his absolute control, his forces are still indiscriminately using “barrel bombs” to kill Syrian civilians, refugees are still flowing out of the country, and ISIS still controls large areas of Syria and parts of Iraq.

Likewise, the only Russian base outside of their country is in Syria.  The Russians have long had a naval base on the Syrian coast at Tartus having established it in the 1970s.  That base is politically and strategically important to the Russians as it provides a resupply and refueling port for the Russian fleet without having to return to Russian territory.  That base was increasingly threatened by the Syrian civil war.  Additionally, Syria is the only Russian ally in the Middle East and their client was in serious trouble.  This is why many analysts say that the current Russian involvement is a sign of weakness rather than strength.  They have propped up Bashar’s regime for years and his father’s before him.  That regime was about to collapse, possibly taking their only base with it and losing their only ally.  In other words, their strategy wasn’t working and the only remaining option was to get involved on the ground.  And they are deeply involved — including ground troops.  Those troops are currently providing security to the air and naval bases used by the Russians, but the Russian leadership has not ruled out a combat mission for follow-on ground forces.

Meanwhile, Russia claims that it is fighting ISIS and is only doing what the United States and other nations are doing in Iraq and Syria.  The difference is that the Russians lump ISIS in with every other anti-regime force at work.  So far, little to none of their military effort is focused on ISIS. If one were generous, one could say that they are fighting terrorism.  A realist knows that they are trying to use our own policies and words against us to prop up a brutal dictator.

The situation is further complicated by several Russian aircraft allegedly straying into Turkish air space (“allegedly” because the Russians claim it was accidental but others, including the Turks, doubt it.  Turkey is a NATO ally — and of course NATO was originally formed to protect its members from an attack by the Soviet Union — Russia). Unconfirmed reports circulated yesterday that Turkey shot down a Russian aircraft — a report that is probably exaggerated or misinformation — but that highlights the potential for significant expansion of the conflict.

The United States policy concerning Syria has been in disarray since August/September of 2013. You may recall that I had a series of pieces that I posted then arguing for enforcement of President Obama’s “redline” concerning Syrian use of chemical weapons.  The United Kingdom’s Parliament tied the Prime Minister’s hands precluding British involvement which then gave the United States Congress pause.  No vote was held, but a resolution to authorize the use of American force against the Bashar regime would most likely have failed.  President Obama subsequently took no action.  I warned at the time that the lack of a forceful response would create larger problems later down  the line.  That time is now.

In my view, President Putin put Russian forces into combat in Syria for several reasons.

  • The Syrian regime was collapsing and Putin could not afford to have his only ally in the Middle East go under.
  • The Russians need the base at Tartus for strategic reasons and for prestige reasons.  It too was threatened should the regime collapse.
  • Russia wants a seat at the table and the ability to broker a deal if and when a political solution is reached to end the civil war in Syria.
  • The Russian economy is doing very poorly.  The sanctions imposed after Russian adventures in Ukraine are having an impact, especially when coupled with the current low price of oil.  When all else fails, dictators time after time become militarily adventurous outside their borders to distract the domestic population from their problems.
  • Putin says the biggest disaster in world history was the demise of the Soviet Union.  He has always had visions of restoring the empire and what he views as Russia’s rightful place in the world. Showing an ability to project military power away from the homeland “just like the United States” gives him prestige at home and perhaps, in some foreign capitals.

All of these indicators show an attempt to cover up fundamental Russian weakness.  We can only see what develops over time, but it is unlikely that Russia can sustain their military operations over the long-term.

Meanwhile in the near-term Russian involvement seriously complicates the situation.  The United States is now “re-evaluating” its options, while continuing to provide air support in operations against ISIS. The Russians claim that there are only two options — support ISIS, or support those fighting ISIS (Bashar Al-Assad).  This is of course a false equivalency but it is a simple statement for a complex situation. Beyond operations against ISIS, it is hard to know what the United States should do.  There are many, many factions now operating in Syria making it difficult to know which are the “good” guys and which are the “bad” guys.  Clearly the president, and I think with the support of the American people and many in Congress, does not want the United States involved in another land war in the Middle East. Although the full military might of the United States could defeat ISIS on the ground, it would take a massive commitment in lives and treasure and in the end we would again be occupiers in a land where we are not welcome.  Not a good long-term proposition for us as a nation.

Increasingly I think that an interim solution to ease the refugee crisis, show our resolve to our allies and to put Russia on notice that we will not tolerate their interference would be to create “safe zones” in Syria and Iraq along the border with Turkey.  This is nearly within our current military level of effort, especially if it is coupled with our allies supplying the troops for security (such as from Turkey), the financing and moral support (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states) while the United States supplies the expertise (advisers), intelligence, and air support.  Such a course creates the possibility of further expansion of the conflict and our involvement in it.  However, the status quo is unacceptable and is not resolving the problem.  Without question Syria and other areas of the Middle East are a real mess, but we can no longer hope that the situation will resolve itself.

Yet Another “Senseless” Shooting At A School

Posted: October 2, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , | 2 Comments

“‘No Way to Prevent This’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens” — The Onion

“We spent over a trillion dollars, and passed countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so.  And yet we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?”             — President Obama

Deaths from Terrorism vs. Gun Homicides:

2001 —  2,689 vs.11,348    2002 — 25 vs.11,829   2003 — 35 vs.11,920   2004 — 74 vs.11,624

2005 — 56 vs.12,352     2006 — 28 vs.12,791    2007 — 19 vs.12,632   2008 — 33 vs.12,179

2009 — 9 vs.11, 493    2010 — 15 vs.11,078     2011 — 17 vs.11,101

(Source:  Vox.com using available State and Justice Department figures.  Does not include suicides by guns.)

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →