Cold War II (continued)
Posted: October 4, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Iraq, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, NATO, Presidential primaries, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, United States, Vladimir Putin Leave a commentWith all of the attention surrounding the circus that is our presidential campaign season, it is possible to overlook other developments of significance. To my mind, one of those significant others is our increasingly deteriorating relationship with Russia.
As I wrote back in July when I focused on the role of NATO and the increasing belligerence Russia is exhibiting towards the Baltic States, Russian President Vladimir Putin sees his role as the one individual that can, and will, restore Russia to its previous glory. Since then he has continued to create discord around the world. In particular, he has helped to further inflame conflict in Syria and Ukraine. Just yesterday Secretary of State John Kerry pulled all of the United States’ negotiators from Geneva where they had been trying to work with the Russians to come up with a political solution to the civil war in Syria and thereby try to save some of the many civilians at risk in Aleppo and other areas of Syria. A cease-fire attempted last month failed when Syrian and Russian, or at least Syrian assisted by Russian, aircraft bombed an aid convoy trying to provide humanitarian relief to those trapped in the city. Since then negotiations aimed at restoring the cease-fire and creating more confidence building measures that might give a chance for a political settlement of the strife had been ongoing. Additionally, the United States had been working on an agreement to work with the Russians in a coordinated military effort against terrorism in the region, especially against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, or as most people in the U.S. call it, ISIS). All of it went out the window when the Russians turned their full military might from the air on Aleppo in a brutal assault, even as negotiations were underway. What future course may be taken to alleviate the situation is up in the air, but it does lead to an increased probability that Russia and the U.S. will be working at cross purposes to fight terrorists in the area and increases the probability of Russian and U.S. military forces coming into contact with each other.
In retaliation for the United States withdrawing from the Syrian negotiations, the Soviets, oops, I mean the Russians, suspended a nuclear agreement signed in 2000 between the two nations that called for the disposal of each nation’s stocks of weapons-grade plutonium. While the Russian suspension of the treaty is mostly symbolic (both countries intend to continue to reduce their stockpiles) it does serve to show how the relationship has deteriorated and it also provided the Russian government an opportunity to complain about actions it believes the United States is taking to undermine Russia.
And what are those actions that so enrage Vladimir Putin you may ask? Foremost among them is the continuing deployment of NATO forces to the Baltic states and the enforcement of the sanctions against Russia for its actions in Ukraine. In Ukraine last August, President Putin raised tensions as he claimed that the Ukrainian government was moving to attack Crimea, the area Russia illegally annexed in 2014. The tension persists and even though it is currently relatively quiet, nothing is totally quiet along the front as periodic fighting continues and lives continue to be lost. Further exacerbating the toxic atmosphere in Ukraine, Dutch investigators clearly linked the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 over Ukraine in July 2014 to the Russian supplied separatists. All 298 people onboard were killed. Despite continued Russian denials, the investigation showed a missile battery moved from Russian territory into rebel held territory and then returned to Russia after the incident. Russian actions in the area continue to be a threat to the rest of Ukraine and Europe, and President Putin seems to be relishing his ability to turn conflict off and on. Keep an eye on developments there as the rest of the world becomes increasingly distracted by the U.S. presidential campaign, events in Syria, and the fight against terrorism.
What is troubling to me about President Putin is his world view. While we have competitors and adversaries in China, Iran, and other spots around the world (President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines seems to be gong off the reservation for example), they have a different world view than does President Putin. Most nations of the world know that they are economically tied to the global economy which is powered by the United States. This does not stop actions antithetical to our interests, but it does serve to temper them. President Putin on the other hand, sees the world and especially Russia’s relationship to the United States, indeed politics in general, as a zero sum game. Whatever hurts the U.S. helps Russia and vice versa. Add to this that his country is not doing well economically and like most dictators, he is creating international foes in order to distract the citizenry from their troubles at home. This makes him ever more dangerous.
In this context, I am amazed that more reporting is not being done on the breaches of cyber security that occur almost daily in the United States, and most especially, the hacks that impact our free and independent elections. Of particular note are the attacks on the Democratic National Committee and the release of scores of emails concerning the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and the attempts to get into the election processes of individual states, most notably Arizona and Illinois. Experts point their collective finger at the Russians as being responsible for these and other equally egregious cyber attacks.
While individual ballot boxes are not connected to the internet, and therefore cannot be hacked, there are other processes that are computer driven and may be susceptible to attack. Among these are voter registration lists. Imagine if large numbers of people show up to vote and are not allowed to do so because their names were expunged from the voting rolls or are otherwise tampered with so as to take away their ability to vote. Add to that one presidential candidate that is already talking about how the vote is rigged if he doesn’t win and that his supporters should go to the polls in urban areas to watch others vote to make sure that everything is on the “up and up” because “that would be one hell of a way to lose, I’ll tell you what.” (Incidentally, in study after study and in court cases concerning voter identification laws, there has been absolutely no evidence of voter fraud changing or even slightly influencing the outcome of any national election, despite urban myths and legends to the contrary.)
I am not a conspiracy theorist and do not want to be misquoted so I will say up front, I do not think that the Republican nominee is in any way aiding or abetting or otherwise involved in the Russian hacking efforts, even though last July he famously invited the Russians to hack his Democratic opponent’s emails. However, I find it disconcerting that thus far, only Democrats have suffered the embarrassing revelations of the Russian hackers. I would be willing to bet that a number of Republican accounts have been similarly hacked, but clearly the Russian hackers are trying to influence the election in one direction. One could speculate as to why that is, or even if there is some kind of reverse bizarro world logic that it could backfire on the other candidate. I don’t know, but clearly there is an effort to influence the outcome. It is bad news for our nation when a foreign power attempts to influence our elections and we do not stop it.
Ultimately, whether or not the attacks are successful at actually changing ballots, the real effort on the part of the Russians is to delegitimize our election process, call into question the results and spread further hate and discontent in an already fractured election process. Besides being cyber warfare, it is most especially also classic psychological warfare aimed at undermining the United States, our policies, and our stature in the world. Vladimir Putin and his cronies are ready and willing to fill the void left by the United States should their efforts be successful.
Unclear to me is whether or not our own cyber warfare forces deployed to counter the Russians and/or to similarly attack them in a way that sends a signal to knock it off or suffer the consequences. It is a tricky situation for the U.S. It is generally accepted that the United States has superior cyber warfare capabilities, but to deploy them now, in the month leading up to an election, and risk a wide-spread cyber war that could impact the election results dramatically (not in vote manipulation necessarily but rather in a wide-spread crisis that impacts infrastructure, banking or some other target that causes far-ranging panic) is a tough decision. On the other hand, we do not know where or when the Russians (and possibly others) might strike anyway if not deterred from doing so. A difficult choice. Unknown, of course, is whether such a counter sign of our capabilities and willingness to punish the Russians in our own attack has already been demonstrated to the Russians by our cyber forces under a stringent top secret operation.
Regardless, our next president must be prepared to deal with the Russians and do so with eyes wide open. Vladimir Putin is no friend of the United States and he never will be. He has one goal and one goal only — to turn his economically depressed country into a super power at the expense of the United States of America.
Cold War II
Posted: July 23, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Baltic States, Donald Trump, Historical Perspective, NATO, Poland, Russia, Vladimir Putin Leave a commentLost in all of the U.S. presidential campaign news, one may be forgiven for missing the increasingly worrisome activity in northern Europe where the Russian bear is flexing his muscles. While there have been numerous incidents of Russian military ships and aircraft harassing North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other friendly nations’ aircraft and vessels, especially in and near the Black Sea, some of the most provocative have occurred in and around the Baltic Sea.
The number of incidents began to increase in the spring of 2014 and through out the rest of that year there were approximately nineteen serious or high risk incidents including a massive Swedish Navy search for a Russian submarine in the Stockholm archipelago and simulated bombing and cruise missile attacks against NATO countries as well as exercises perceived to be practice for invading the Baltic States. Throughout 2015 and 2016 there have been numerous additional close encounters with the Russian military, precipitated by the Russians and interpreted to be deliberate provocations. This includes this past April when two Russian military aircraft flew a simulated attack 30 feet over the guided missile destroyer USS Donald (DDG-75) while in international waters. A few days later Russian fighters intercepted a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft over international waters in the Baltic. And the (very long) list of such provocations goes on.
In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, at the height of the cold war, such incidents were frequent, and dangerous. In order to prevent misunderstandings which could lead to bloodshed and possible conflict, the United States and Soviet Union formulated the Incidents At Sea Agreement, signed by Secretary of the Navy John Warner, and his Soviet counterpart Admiral Sergei Gorshkov. By providing specific protocols when U.S. and Soviet ships and aircraft were in proximity to each other it was designed to “enhance mutual knowledge and understanding of military activities; to reduce the possibility of conflict by accident, miscalculation, or the failure of communication; and to increase stability in times of both calm and crisis.” Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the withdrawal of much of its military back to the homeland, there was very little need for the agreement and it ceased to be useful. It may be time to update it and renew it.
The real question, however, is what is going on? Why are the Russians resuming their provocative maneuvers against NATO and other western powers? The answer may be found in one of two names, or more likely a combination of two names: Vladimir Putin and Ukraine. Putin wants to rebuild the Russian Empire and by that we mean that he is looking for good old-fashioned respect as a world and military power. The incidents are meant to remind the West that he is the major player in his part of the world and that he can (and may?) do whatever he desires. To paraphrase the old adage, “Russia is back!” In 2005 he made a major speech to the Russian people where he is translated as saying:
“Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.”
Remember that this was a large part of his justification for entering Ukraine and in annexing the Crimea. He argues that he is protecting Russian citizens and “ethnic” Russians and thus fulfilling his duties as head of the Russian state. During the time of the Soviet Union, many now independent nations around the periphery of the old Soviet Union were “colonized” by Russians and many also settled there for economic and other reasons. They and their descendants remain.
This background is important in understanding the current state of affairs in the Baltic States — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — and to a slightly lesser degree, Poland. The Baltic States were part of the Soviet Union and Poland was part of the Warsaw Pact dominated by the Soviet Union.
Geographically they are at a strategic disadvantage. A look at a map reveals two important features. One is that between Poland and Lithuania is a part of the Russian state called Kaliningrad, a major Russian military outpost. Second is that the border between Russia and Poland and the Baltic States is mostly flat ground with no significant defensible geographic features that would impede a ground attack from rolling across the border and deep into the country under attack.
I had the pleasure of making a short stop in Tallinn the capital of Estonia recently. The people are very friendly, full of energy and eager to see their new nation become integrated into world affairs. They are also well aware that only a short time ago they were occupied by the Germans and then subjugated by the Russians as one of the republics of the Soviet Union. They became an independent nation in March 1990 despite resistance to their independence by the Russians. Their history is very fresh in their in minds and if they doubt the impact Russia can have on their new nation, they are reminded of it every day. Directly across from their parliament building sits the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral built in the late 1800’s as a Russian Orthodox cathedral during the time of Estonia’s inclusion in the Russian Empire. It was part of the Russification efforts underway at the time to assimilate the Estonians. It purposefully occupies the most prominent position in the Old Town on top of a bluff above the town. Although it fell into decay during the Soviet era, it was beautifully restored in recent years but is still considered by many Estonians to be a symbol of Russian oppression. It should also be noted that while Estonians consider themselves to be culturally different from Russians, approximately 25% of the population is Russian.
Needless to say, the combination of Putin’s desire to regain the “empire” coupled with his actions in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea makes the Russian military provocations in the Baltic area very meaningful to those that live there. The Baltic States and Poland are among the twenty-eight members of NATO. And that’s where it starts to get interesting.
Earlier this month, President Obama and the other heads of state met at a NATO summit in Warsaw. Many topics were covered ranging from Afghanistan to Ballistic Missile Defense to ISIS. But a major topic, the one capturing the attention of those following it closely, was a key decision concerning the Baltic area. For several years now, the United States and other members have rotated troops and fighter wings through the Baltic States as a reminder to Russia that NATO has a stake in their continued independence. At this year’s summit, those provisional deployments were made firmer. In response to Russian provocations, the NATO members decided to deploy ground forces (four battalions) on a rotating basis, but always there, in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. Additionally, air and naval forces will conduct periodic training in and near the area. The point is much the same as our stationing of troops in West Germany during Cold War I. Should the Russians make a move on one of these states, they will need to go through NATO forces to do it and thus risk war. To be clear, the numbers of NATO forces there are a drop in the bucket and would not meaningfully impede a Russian advance. They are there as a symbol of resolve. Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (the creation of NATO) an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. It is the principal of collective defense that has helped to keep the peace in Europe and provided the foundation for a period of economic and political stability that has lasted for roughly seventy years. The first time in the history of NATO that Article 5 was invoked was following the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001.
The idea of collective defense coupled with the military capability and political will to back it up has been the cornerstone of American foreign policy since World War II. There was never any doubt about the U.S. commitment to NATO and our allies. It served as a major block to Soviet adventurism in Cold War I and is a serious warning to Putin’s adventurism as Cold War II begins to build. Never a doubt. Until now.
In a foreign policy interview published by the New York Times on 21 July, Mr. Donald J. Trump (R-Manhattan) threw that commitment into doubt. You can read it for yourself using the link, but here is part of that interview:
SANGER: I was just in the Baltic States. They are very concerned obviously about this new Russian activism, they are seeing submarines off their coasts, they are seeing airplanes they haven’t seen since the Cold War coming, bombers doing test runs. If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don’t think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid?
TRUMP: I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I’m not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.
SANGER: They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated ——
TRUMP: We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills.
SANGER: That’s true, but we are treaty-obligated under NATO, forget the bills part.
TRUMP: You can’t forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they’re supposed to make. That’s a big thing. You can’t say forget that.
SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——
TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.
HABERMAN: And if not?
TRUMP: Well, I’m not saying if not. I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.
Regardless to say, this created a high level of anxiety throughout the capitals of our allies and seriously casts into doubt the viability of collective defense. To be effective, Article 5 has to be an article of faith for every member and for every potential opponent. Otherwise, it has little meaning. As Cold War II develops, I’m sure Vladimir Putin was celebrating.
Wondering Out Loud On A Saturday
Posted: July 16, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Black Lives Matter, Congress, Mass Killings, Supreme Court, Turkey 1 CommentThe past few weeks were filled with notable events, often coming so fast that it is hard to digest one before the next takes our attention. Many are horrific, others significant, and still others may change our world in ways we yet know. Taken in sum or in part, they can be depressing and continue to challenge my view that the world is basically a good place and that given the chance, most people will do the right thing.
In no particular order, here are a few thoughts on the major and minor events of the last few weeks that have set me to thinking.
Turkey. The attempted coup in Turkey yesterday proved one old adage. When the person you are trying to over throw takes off in an airplane, do not let them land back in the country again. More seriously, it is not only good for Turkey that their democratically elected President Recep Erdogan was able to disrupt and ultimately defeat those attempting the coup, but it is also good for NATO and for the United States. Turkey is a lynch pin in a wide range of western policies ranging from the defeat of ISIS to relations with Israel. However, President Erdogan will never be accused of being a nice guy. Do not expect it to be a pretty sight in the coming days and weeks as the government rounds up those that tried to bring them down. And those suspected of helping them whether or not they actually did.
Mass killings. When is it “too soon” to talk about them besides offering up only “thoughts and prayers”? When some politicians try to go beyond platitudes they are accused of politicizing the events. At the rate that they have recently been coming, we will never talk about them because one can hardly comprehend what happened before another occurs. Our society is increasingly violent. We need to look seriously at ways to stop the violence and provide for the safety of the average citizen. This does not mean solely protection from alleged Islamist terrorists — many of whom have no religious background and are primarily disgruntled or mentally unstable petty crooks looking for a cause — but in other ways as well. According to recent studies by the American Automobile Association and the American Safety Council, 56% of all fatal crashes in the multi-year study are caused by road rage and 37% of the incidents involve a fire arm. In the United States.
Black Lives Matter. When did discussions in our country become “either or” discussions? Why does supporting the Black Lives Matter protesters become anti-police officer or vice versa? Why does one have to choose a side when in the end we are talking about the well-being of our communities and those that live in them? A serious discussion needs to occur at the community level to get everyone back on the same page. In the end we all want the same thing — a safe and pleasant community — so why not protest when citizens believe that they do not live in a such a community? But more violence and targeting police officers will not bring that about. Ironically, the police chief in Dallas had been working hard to change the atmosphere and context of police-community relations and by many accounts had made great progress. It is so sad and so senseless that his community and our nation suffered the loss of five fine police officers.
Gun Safety. When did working for increased gun safety become anti-gun? Another example of a complex issue in our country becoming an “either or” argument. I despair that we will ever have a serious discussion about this issue. Any discussion that contains “libtards”, “red-necks”, “do away with all guns” or “from my cold dead hands” is going nowhere from the start. There is a middle ground. When over 30,000 people die from guns every year in the United States we have a problem. We must address it.
Congress. Do not get me started. I will say this, Congress just left Washington for a seven week summer break (and oh yeah, to campaign for re-election). According to the current schedule, they will only be around, you know, actually working on bills, for about two more weeks before the November elections. Please note that most weeks when they are in session, work (actually a chance that they may vote on something) never begins before 6:30 PM on Monday (and usually it is noon on Tuesday) and never goes past 3:00 PM on Friday (usually actually ends about 8 PM on Thursday). We should all be so lucky. According to govtrack.us there are currently 10,896 bills and resolutions before the current Congress. On 3 January 2017 the 114th Congress will end and all bills not addressed by then will die. To see the light of day again, they must again be put forward by our legislators. In the one to two weeks left of actual legislating (unless they meet in a lame duck session after the election — note that one can only be a lame duck after an election that you lost, not because you are declared one 10 months prior to the election) they will have to address appropriations bills across the government in order to keep it functioning. Once again we are facing an omnibus continuing resolution that provides some money to keep things going until they can figure it out (and some are calling for that to carry over until next March so that the new Congress can deal with it — and remind me why we elect these people) or there will be another government shutdown.
The Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke out this week about the future of the nation should Mr. Donald J. Trump (R-Manhattan) become our next president. Let’s just say she didn’t think it would be a good thing. She caught a lot of criticism from both the left and the right about a Supreme Court Justice inserting herself into the election process. In my view, the criticism is justified. We cannot be naive enough to think that they do not have personal opinions, but publicly, and repeatedly opining about the qualifications of a presidential candidate creates the perception of bias. Not good. Late this week Justice Ginsburg issued a statement expressing her “regret” but no apology. Hopefully, this will be a lesson. However, historians point out that through out our history Supreme Court Justices have been political and made political statements. As outlined in many articles this week, including one in historynewsnetwork.org at least nine Supreme Court Justices became involved in Presidential politics. William Howard Taft was the president before going to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. I am sure his political views were well-known. Another, Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Supreme Court to run for President, lost the election, and then come back many years later as Chief Justice. And there are others. For goodness sake, Chief Justice John Marshall was both Chief Justice and Secretary of State under President John Adams at the same time. Still, I think it best if Supreme Court Justices stay above election politics.
And then there’s this. At the Republican National Convention two security zones are to be established by law enforcement officials. One will be in the direct vicinity of the convention center and run by the Secret Service. Another, larger one will encompass much of center Cleveland. Since Ohio has laws that allow for the open carrying of fire arms without a permit, fire arms will be allowed in the second security zone. Here is what bothers me. Guns are okay, but a partial list of items that are not okay includes air rifles, BB guns, knives, slingshots, metal cans, thermos bottles, tennis balls, umbrellas with metal tips, coolers, gas masks, string, tape more than six inches long and on and on. For the safety of the participants. Here’s a question, because it caused confusion in Dallas. How are law enforcement officials supposed to know which people carrying guns are citizens exercising their rights and which are terrorists bent on mass destruction?
There has been so much more that has confused, amazed and appalled me these past few weeks but that is enough rambling for the time being. I am sure there will be more confusing, amazing and appalling events to come, especially with the Republican Convention beginning on Monday followed the week after by the Democrats. Good luck to us all.
Taxation Without Representation
Posted: June 19, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Constitution, Historical Perspective, Politics, United States Constitution Leave a commentThe title of this piece is the same as the motto that for years can be found on the license plates of vehicles registered in Washington D.C. Most tourists, when they recognize it, are startled to see it and often ask about it, thus the reason for it being there in the first place. The answer, however, while simple in response — “the District has no voting representatives in the Congress” — is far less simple in the context of the current political world.
To many D.C. residents, last Tuesday’s Democrat presidential primary in the District was symbolic of their plight in the modern United States. While afforded the opportunity to vote for one of the nominees (Hillary Clinton won, while Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) won the Republican primary held in March), their votes were the last in the nation and of no significance since the nomination had already been decided.
It may be useful to put things in a quick historical context. As we all learned in elementary school, Washington became the new capital city for the newly created United States. Created by Congress through passage of the Residence Act in July 1790, the city’s location was the result of a compromise hammered out between Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) already provided for a federal district that was not a part of any state and that would be governed by the Congress. Maryland and Virginia each donated land along the Potomac River that created a square-shaped jurisdiction and included the existing cities of Georgetown on the Maryland side, and Alexandria on the Virginia side. In 1846 Congress returned Virginia’s donated land to the state (a complicated story in itself but it has to do with slaves as well as the city of Alexandria, and the fact that all federal buildings were constructed on the Maryland side) creating the current District’s size and shape.
For most of their history, D.C. residents had no say over how their city was governed. The first significant change came in the early 1960’s with the ratification of the Twenty-third Amendment to the Constitution which gave the District three electoral college votes for president. The votes are allocated according to population, but regardless, cannot exceed the number of votes allotted to the least populous state.
In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that allowed for the citizens of the city to elect a mayor and 13 Council members. The first mayor was elected in 1975.
What is the significance of this brief history lesson? Well, because of these cases and others, some legal scholars argue that, starting with the return of Virginia’s portion of the District, the Congress undid many elements of the original Constitution, thus setting a precedent that the District should be allowed home rule.
Here’s the real rub. The District’s citizens resent that Congress over rides many of the laws that they pass within the Council or via referendum among the citizens. Often, they are undone by conservative members of Congress that, according to many of the District’s citizens, use D.C. as a personal lab to push conservative causes that they cannot get done in their home state or in the Congress. Additionally, when Congress is gridlocked, the District suffers because their budget, just like the Defense Department or the State Department is held hostage during the negotiations, making it difficult to run the city because even though they have the money (their own money, they argue) unless Congress authorizes them to spend it, they are not able to do so.
This is relevant today, as another major battle is brewing between the District’s government and Congress. While D.C. supposedly has home rule, they must have their budget approved by Congress . This year the city government says that while they will submit it to Congress for review, they will not wait for approval and will spend the $13 billion dollars as they see fit. That budget breaks down to $4 billion in federal taxes and $7 billion in local property, sales, and other taxes. (In the past, Congress would block spending on items or issues of which they did not approve. They also control all of the funds, including those through local taxes.) It is, as the Washington Post observed, essentially a Declaration of Independence by the city. The Congress is not amused. It may be a fight that D.C. cannot win, with threats of contempt of Congress and possible jail time for the mayor and Council. Such activity directly in spite of Congress is deemed un-Constitutional. In a vote in late May, the House voted to nullify the District’s voter approved measure to give themselves autonomy over their own city’s spending.
The real issue of course is whether or not Washington D.C. should become the fifty-first state.
Primarily, the desire of an increasing number of the city’s citizens is for autonomy in creating budgets and taking legislative actions, and gaining voting representation in Congress, just like the “other” states — 67% of voters in D.C. want statehood according to a poll last fall. (Currently the District has one representative or “delegate” in the House but that person cannot vote on legislation.)
The behind the scenes issue is that Washington D.C. voters are primarily Democrats and that giving the District two Senators and a member of Congress would add to the numbers of Democrats in those two legislative bodies.
As argued by the proponents of statehood, and delineated in the Post, Washington D.C. is not an economically backward city dependent on the federal government for its income. For example:
- The D.C. economy is bigger per capita than 16 states.
- The D.C. budget is less reliant on federal funds than are those of 30 states.
- D.C is actually a “donor state” along with states such as New York, Massachusetts, and California that pay more in federal taxes each year than the receive in services from the federal government.
- D.C. has a larger population than Vermont and Wyoming.
- Large portions of the city pay no local taxes as they are federally owned (Capital, White House, monuments, etc.) or are owned by tax-exempt entities.
- D.C. has its own National Guard unit and its citizens serve in the Armed Forces of the United States without a say in how such forces are used.
- Most federal workers live in Maryland or Virginia, paying no taxes in D.C., while the city has to bear the expenses of providing services (police, fire, sewer, etc.) to those workers.
The list goes on and on. Washington D.C. has its share of arguments as to why it should become the fifty-first state. And yet, there is that pesky little document called the Constitution.
Personally, I do not think that Washington D.C. should become a state. However, clearly a compromise of some sort that gives the citizens of D.C. some say in their own, and their nation’s affairs should be reachable. Past efforts at compromise have failed, mainly for political reasons that have little to do with city politics or policies and more to do with wielding power in the Congress.
Other proposals include giving the land back to Maryland and thus D.C. would have two Senators (Maryland’s) and gain representation in the House based on population. Unfortunately, Maryland does not want to regain the city and the District does not want to join Maryland.
My thought is that D.C. is on the right track. Allow the city to manage its own fiscal and legislative affairs, just like any other governmental entity in our country. Make the “delegate” a voting member of the House and add (or subtract) Representatives based on population and the current census used to draw up representation in the House. No representation in the Senate.
The original creation of Washington D.C. was a compromise. It seems that a reasonable compromise is attainable in the twenty-first century so that all of our nations’ citizens have some form of representation in designating how their tax dollars will work.
Only One Vote Away
Posted: June 11, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics Leave a commentAs hard as one may try, it is nearly impossible to avoid the controversy surrounding the two standard bearers for the major parties in the race for the presidency. They certainly do not need more discussion or analysis, especially here. And yet. And yet. It is equally impossible to ignore the big old elephant in the middle of the room. Even if one tries their best to ignore him, like a petulant two-year old, he will eventually get your attention. Of course, I am speaking about Donald J. Trump the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.
Before we journey too far down this road, let me say up front that I am not a particular fan of Hillary Clinton, the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party. This piece will not push you to vote for her if you are not inclined to do so. But it will push hard to suggest that it should be impossible to vote for Mr. Trump. Vote for the former Republican governor of New Mexico Gary Earl Johnson who is the Libertarian Party nominee. Vote for your cousin. Write in any name you may want to do — shoot put your own name as a write-in candidate so that you can say that you once ran for president. But for the sake of our nation, please do not vote for Mr. Trump.
There are several things that are dangerous about him. His well-documented racist, misogynistic, narcissistic, self-serving, thin-skinned, bloviating pronouncements are well-known. They started with his “birther” attacks on President Obama in March, 2011 and continue to today. (By the way, he promised that he had discovered “absolute proof” that President Obama was not born in Hawaii. I still have not seen it, have you?) Why would anyone think that the blow hard would change his tune and become presidential? (More on that in a minute.) He erased any remaining boundaries constraining political discourse in this country. I could go on, but I think you know who and what we are dealing with when it comes to Donald J. Trump. I give him the benefit of the doubt when people say he is not really racist. Perhaps. I cannot know what is in his heart or his mind. Unfortunately for our country, it does not matter. What he does say is racist and he plays to the basest instincts of mankind. Whether he has it in his heart or not, his actions say he is a racist. Even Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) says his recent pronouncements are racist.
Equally troubling is that I presume Mr. Trump is a smart man. However, after a year of running for president he has not taken the time or the interest to gain even the most shallow understanding of the important issues facing our nation, whether foreign or domestic. One of his supporters, the Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said on CNN yesterday that Mr. Trump better pick a knowledgeable running mate for Vice President. As he said, “He needs someone highly experienced and very knowledgeable because it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know a lot about the issues.” His total lack of intellectual curiosity further solidifies my belief that he is a loose cannon with no real interest in leading our country beyond the ego trip of the trappings of the office and the possible benefit to his personal business holdings. (Many analysts speculate that Mr. Trump will not release his tax forms because it will reveal the Potemkin Village that his business “empire” really is — just a sham presented to make things look better than the reality. Many reports in the media already show that his promises of his “huge” philanthropic efforts either do not exist, or are the result of his foundation giving away other people’s money — not his own. As Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) correctly points out, he is a con man.)
I hope that the glare of the national spotlight shines brightly on Mr. Trump and that the American people end up with a huge case of buyer’s remorse before it is too late. We are already beginning to see the real Donald J. Trump as he attacks an Indiana born federal judge as being biased against him because he is a “Mexican.” (And later Mr. Trump added that a Muslim judge would also not give him a fair shake in court.) Whenever Mr. Trump is under attack, or more regrettably when things do not go his way as is happening with the law suit against Trump (cough cough) University he lashes out. Those that should know better say that when he is president, he will act differently and be surrounded by advisers that will temper his tantrums. Why do they think that? There is nothing in his demeanor to indicate that he will change and indeed he makes a point of saying that he will not change, that his is the brightest mind in the room, that he hasn’t listened to the advisers thus far and look how far he has come and many many more such pronouncements that lead me to believe that he will act exactly the same way as president as he has in his reality show of a campaign.
That people like Mr. Trump exist in our country was not a surprise to me. That so many people would vote for him, and thus by extension validate his ideas, divisiveness and lack of ability is deeply distressing to me. I had no idea so many of our fellow Americans were of the same nature as he is. Among those that have profoundly and deeply disappointed me and my generally positive view of the world are the majority of the Republican political leadership that endorsed Mr. Trump and thereby endorsed his policies, ideas, and methods. Look again at the above paragraphs. The Republican leadership in the Congress, embodied by Speaker Ryan that calls Mr. Trump’s remarks “racist” and Majority Leader McConnell’s statement that it is pretty obvious Mr. Trump “doesn’t know a lot about the issues” a year into the process, and yet they fully endorse him. It blows my mind. Like it or not, one cannot slice the apple by saying that they support Mr. Trump but not his racism, misogyny, threat to the Constitution and general lack of the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief. You support him, you support all of him — there is no separating the man from his policies, such as they are.
In my life I have disagreed strongly with particular policies of some presidents. Most maybe. But with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, I never felt that it was personal or that they would end up destroying the fabric of our society. The thought of Donald J. Trump as president is the scariest thing I have ever faced in my political lifetime.
Nearly half of his avowed supporters say that they do not believe that he will actually do what he says he will do, such as deport 11 million undocumented immigrants or keep those of the Muslim faith from entering the country (I wonder what Muhammad Ali thought of that — talk about “the greatest.”) They claim that his “policies” are more symbolic and not anything that he would actually do and besides, they really want someone to “blow up” the business as usual attitude in the nation’s capital. Be careful what you wish for. He will certainly shake things up, but remember that all new ideas are not necessarily good ideas. More to the point, what makes anyone think that he will not actually do what he says he is going to do? Can we take that chance?
In trying to understand why the Republican leadership would endorse and work to elect someone like Mr. Trump, it occurs to me that they secretly want Secretary Clinton to win. I do not mean that as a joke, and of course I do not know this for a fact because they will never say it, but here’s why I think that they do. If Secretary Clinton wins, the world and our nation are saved from the irrational dictates of Mr. Trump. While at the same time, they can continue to oppose everything that President Clinton puts forward, just as they have with President Obama, in order to maintain their political base, keep their jobs, and the Congress under Republican control. Then they go for the White House in 2020 campaigning that twelve years of Democrats in the White House “ruined” the country. If there is a President Trump, they will be forced to work with him and his nutty ideas, or oppose their own party’s president in office. They will likely lose their jobs and Republican control of the Congress. If not in 2016, then certainly in 2018 when the nation comes to understand just how dangerous Mr. Trump is, and the current leadership will not be able to say “don’t blame us” because they have all put party above country. Forget about a Republican in the White House in 2020. There may not even be a recognizable Republican Party in 2020 with Mr. Trump as the leader of the party of Lincoln.
I give great credit to some Republicans like former presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) and a few (too few in my view) others that have put country above party. They clearly are not enamored of Secretary Clinton and claim they will not vote for her. They are also just as clear that they will never vote for Mr. Trump. They know him up front and personal. All of us should pay attention.
Our nation is just one vote away from having a President Trump. We should be worried, very worried. To me, Donald J. Trump fits the mold of strong men across the arc of history that were duly elected and then proceeded to ruin their countries and cost many their lives. Let’s keep that from happening here.
Protecting First Amendment Rights
Posted: April 12, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Constitution, Divisiveness, Historical Perspective, Politics, Same-sex marriage, United States Constitution Leave a commentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
— First Amendment to the Constitution
I must admit that I am somewhat baffled by the string of new laws passed by various state legislatures pretending to protect religious beliefs as they pertain to same-sex marriage and to the LGBT community. Rightfully, several governors vetoed the work done in their legislatures, but others did not and signed them into law. Taking it one step further, Tennessee passed a law making the Bible the official state book. (As of this writing, it is unclear whether the governor will veto or sign the bill.) In most, if not all, of these cases, legislators claim that religion is under attack. In fact, they really mean that in their view, conservative Christianity is under attack. If they felt that “religion” was under attack they would decry Mr. Donald Trump’s and Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) proposals to ban all Muslims from entering the United States and to spy on those already here. That is certainly a threat to Muslims practicing their religion.
So why do they feel that way? The short answer is that I cannot pretend to know what is in their hearts. I will say this, however. I am a practicing Catholic with close ties to my local parish and in no way do I feel that my religion or my ability to practice it is in any kind of danger. And Catholics know something about being discriminated against for their religion. Without going into a lengthy history lesson, let me remind you that Catholics in most of the original thirteen colonies were widely discriminated against, especially in matters of property, voting or holding office. Even after the Revolution many of them had prohibitions against Catholics holding office, or requirements for them to denounce their religion before they could hold office. Other religions were equally mistreated. With the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, freedom of religion as provided in the First Amendment became the law of the land, but it did not preclude suspicion and intolerance of Catholics which carried into the Twentieth Century and included anti-Catholic criminal acts by the Ku Klux Klan. Some of that sentiment was a carry over from the Reformation. Much of it centered on immigrants, especially from Germany and Ireland. Other manifestations centered on a belief that American Catholics, if given a chance, would turn the country over to the Pope in Rome. In my lifetime I remember the anti-Catholic sentiment directed at John F. Kennedy as he ran for president leading him to make a major speech that certified his loyalty to the United States rather than to the Pope. There is more, but you get the idea.
So, yeah, I will say it again, I know a little something about “attacks on religion” and I most definitely do not feel that I am under attack.
I do feel that the separation of church and state ratified in the Constitution is under attack. State legislators, and those that support them, seem to feel that the government is forcing them to do something evil by treating LGBT folks as they themselves would want to be treated. I will say up front, again, that I do not know what is in their hearts or the sincerity of their beliefs, I just fail to see the logic behind the idea that if one serves a same-sex couple a cake that one will then burn in hell. Just like I am not a Constitutional scholar, I am also not a theologian, but I have read the Bible (cover to cover — not bragging, just saying most people I know only read excerpts of it) and I do not see anything about serving cakes to same-sex couples. I also do not understand the belief that by doing so, one condones the same-sex marriage. By serving divorced people does one condone divorce? By serving atheists does one condone atheism? Of course not, especially since there is nothing to condone, condemn or otherwise get one’s knickers in a knot over. It’s nobody’s business.
Some argue that the real issue is “protecting” young girls from predatory men in bathrooms. Thus the laws state that one must use the bathrooms designated for use based on one’s birth sex. Besides wondering how that will be enforced, because there is no use in passing a law if it will not be enforced (bathroom police? which gives a whole new meaning to “drop ’em mister”), I see that issue as a smoke screen to hide much more ominous provisions of those laws that can lead directly to unabashed discrimination under the claim of religious freedom.
The heart of the First Amendment regarding religion is the Establishment Clause. As interpreted and accepted as law, it is not only the idea that the government cannot establish an official religion, but also that it cannot pass any law that favors one religion over another and cannot pass laws that favor religion over non-religion or vice versa. In that context, laws created ostensibly to allow religious tolerance can easily become religious intolerance laws as they push the tenets of one religion over others.
I also do not buy the “slippery slope” arguments used by some. Serving cake to a same-sex couple is not going to result in the eventuality of the government forcing clergy to marry everyone or anyone in their community. We will have much bigger problems to contend with prior to reaching that point. It isn’t going to happen.
It seems that in the context of civility and mutual respect that we could survive in a “live and let live” world without having to pass laws over who does or does not get served based on one’s personal religious beliefs. Discrimination is discrimination, however one tries to justify it.
Same-sex marriage is now a reality in the United States and other countries. With the Supreme Court decision in 2015 in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex marriages receive equal protection under the law. One may agree or disagree with the decision, but it is what it is and efforts to circumvent the decision by using state laws under the cover of religious tolerance is in my view an abuse of power, and I suspect, will also be shown to be un-constitutional.
I try to understand the real motivation behind such laws. I am sure there are many that are truly concerned from a religious stand point. (Which of course assumes that LGBT people are not religious, which is no more true than that all straight people are religious.) More probably, I think that some of the legislators are really trying to score political points with their constituents. By that I do not mean that they have listened to the religious concerns of those constituents. I think instead they are really reacting to what they consider an “out of control” federal government and Supreme Court. They are really trying to show that they will not “tolerate” directions from a “godless” Obama administration. And they have succeeded — they are ably demonstrating just how intolerant they are.
Troubling Times Ahead
Posted: March 22, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Bernie Sanders, Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Partisan Leave a commentAs 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 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics, Presidential Election, United States Constitution 1 CommentAs 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.
Tom
Into The Fray 
Recent Comments