A Soup Sandwich
Posted: May 17, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Constitution, Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics, United States Constitution 1 CommentWith increasing frequency, nearly daily, we as a nation wake up to yet another incredible self-created crisis in the Trump Administration. People that care that our nation’s leader is becoming something of a punch line around the world debate whether President Trump’s actions, statements, and yes, tweets are part of a larger plan or simply the reflection of a man with little to no intellectual curiosity, the attention span of a young child, and who is in way over his head. I am increasingly falling into the latter category.
In my day the military term for his administration would be that it is a soup sandwich. The term means exactly what the imagery suggests, something so confused and messy that it cannot be salvaged.
The litany of recent events are well-known. Whether it is his casual revelations to the Russians of highly critical intelligence, his thinly veiled threats to former FBI Director Comey, his stated reason for firing Mr. Comey because of the “Russian thing”, or the possibility that he tried to stop the FBI investigation of the Russian meddling and specifically Lt General Michael Flynn’s possible involvement with the Russians, his actions have shown a president and an administration that have lost their way. Put more bluntly, look in the dictionary for “soup sandwich” and you will see a picture of the president.
Note again that all of the crises that the White House staff have dealt with thus far are all self-created by the president. This does not bode well for handling the inevitable national security crisis or domestic tragedy on the horizon that will test our ability as a nation to deal with all that comes our way.
Most legal scholars and Constitutional law experts point out that nothing that we know about thus far concerning the president’s actions is illegal. Unethical and/or immoral, perhaps, but not illegal. This is very troubling. As Dana Milbank ably points out in a recent opinion piece, just because it is legal, does not mean that it is right. Or as we used to say, just because you can do something, it doesn’t mean that it is a good idea. The basic point is that President Trump knows no boundaries, has no self-control and therefore has the ability to do great damage to our nation, whether deliberate or out of ignorance. As Mr. Milbank points out in his troubling piece, the president is within his rights — legally — to do all of the things that we know about. But the assumption for all modern presidents is that a president would not do all of those things without the proper justifications and explanations. In crafting the Constitution, the Founding Fathers assumed that the chief executive would be virtuous , guided by honor, and exhibit self-restraint. Scholars point out that the Constitution gives many powers to the president, specifically and inherently. The checks and balances that we rely upon cannot stop the president from wreaking havoc in the short-term. Although the ultimate power rests with the Congress — impeachment — and the courts — ruling certain presidential actions unconstitutional — it takes time and political capital to bring those counter balancing powers to bear. In the meantime, significant and even irreparable damage can be done to our nation. With President Trump we have a chief executive that seems to be lacking the knowledge to understand the limits and responsibilities of the presidency combined with unchecked impulsivity that can easily lead to damaging actions and decisions.
Look at President Trump’s background. His success as a businessman by most accounts was not so much because of his personal knowledge and ability. It was more about branding. He sold the Trump Brand to investors and let others actually build the real property. Recently, few of his Trump buildings were actually Trump projects, he merely sold his name and promotional abilities for use by those doing the work. He became famous due to his time as a television reality star. Even today he talks about “ratings” for press conferences and speeches. The pop psychoanalysis could go on and on, but in every instance, it appears that his personality is ill-suited to lead the greatest nation on earth. To me, for example, he related the very highly classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister (information that will probably result in lives lost, and certainly the loss of an important avenue of intelligence) not because he wanted to help the Russians. I think he did it because he was showing off and wanted to impress his visitors. Remember this is the guy that in the midst of the ceremony “celebrating” the House passing Trumpcare, stopped his speech to turn around and ask “How am I doing? Am I doing OK? Hey, I’m president. I’m president. Can you believe it?” Well, no, I can’t believe it. But it is true.
I hear the “I word” — impeachment — bandied about a lot recently. From what we know now, we are not there yet. I also worry that under the current divisive political atmosphere in our country that an impeachment act and subsequent trial would be very bad for our nation. We might not recover from that trauma for many years. Therefore any impeachment proceedings must be based on clear violations of the law, should there be any.
The other proposal that floats around from time to time is that the 25th Amendment can be used to remove him from office. This amendment pertains to the succession to the presidency should the president be unable to fulfill his duties. The relevant section of the amendment in this case is Section Four which provides a procedure for the Vice President and such other “principal officers of the executive departments” (meaning the Cabinet) to declare the president unfit for duty. Should the president contest that declaration, it goes to a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. This too would be a long drawn out procedure that could seriously divide our country should the president resist the take-over attempt. It seems unlikely in any event that Vice-president Pence and the Trump appointed Cabinet would invoke this avenue of removal, barring some obvious and unassailable problem with the president.
Finally, President Trump could resign. Many pundits and others think this is the most likely scenario for the current president to leave office. President Trump himself said that
“I loved my previous life. I had so many things going. This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier. I like to work, so that’s not a problem, but this is actually more work and while I had very little privacy in my old life because, you know, I’ve been famous for a long time, I really, this is – this is much less privacy than I’ve ever seen before.”
None-the-less, I doubt very much that the president has any intention of resigning. He likes the attention and being on the “inside” — people have to pay attention to him and he likes that.
Potentially compounding President Trump’s negative impact on the nation is the dilemma many of his top advisers are facing. It is a classic scenario. The president continually throws good, hard-working and upright people under the bus. They go out and defend his actions in, I hope, good faith only to have him personally provide a completely different rationale for his actions. This can only go on for so long before people start to ponder resigning. This is the dilemma such good people face — resign and save my reputation and integrity or stay and try to change things because they could really be a lot worse if no one of significant knowledge and competence is left to try to hold him in check?
I fear that most people consider the recent events as “typical” Washington politics. That’s too bad. This is not typical and it is not normal. And it isn’t “sour grapes” that the Democrats lost the presidency.
Many continue to state that as a nation we should give the guy a chance. He’s only been in office about four months. Give him time. I tried. Sorry, but I do not think that anything is going to cause President Trump to change.
For the Republican majority on Capital Hill I can only say, “Clean up on aisle seven. Soup sandwich in progress.” The Republican agenda depends on a functioning presidency. The deal with the devil is almost gone as more and more of the president’s actions take away from the legislature’s ability to legislate. Clean up the soup sandwich through comprehensive and bipartisan investigations. Find out what actually happened, or did not happen, and get it into the public domain. Use a little Clorox on the clean up of the soup sandwich.
If it turns out there is nothing there involving the Russians or other problems then so much the better. If there is something, hold all involved accountable. The good news/bad news may be that there is nothing there. The good news is that people will not go to jail and the integrity of the system may be restored. The bad news is that we will still be left with a soup sandwich.
A Disturbing Conclusion
Posted: March 16, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Constitution, Divisiveness, Donald Trump, Politics, Russia, United States Constitution 1 CommentAnother day, another Trump story dominating the news. I will eventually again write about something other than our president, but it is hard to ignore the elephant in the room when every morning there is some new statement by the president or his staff that is cringe worthy. Be it wire tapping (with or without “quotation marks” — this is what we have come down to — or misspellings) or microwaves as cameras, every day there is something. We as citizens need to look past the daily “guess what they just said” comments and try to discern what is really going on.
Avoiding a discussion on the Trump Administration policies for the moment, which is hard to do, there is a different picture I am trying to understand. And believe me, trying to ignore his proposals is difficult, be it the American Health Care Act (or Trumpcare — no, no, it’s Ryancare — no, no Trumpcare) or the president’s budget proposals that gut many essential programs and departments. Those proposals, as good or as bad as they may be depending on one’s political views, are just that, proposals. The Congress ultimately will pass, or not, the AHCA and any president’s budget proposals are more of a wish list and indicator of their administration’s priorities rather than the actual budget, which is also the purview of the Congress.
I am focused for the moment on trying to figure out exactly what is going on with those things that the president actually controls and what they may portend. To some degree, it is necessary to get down in the weeds to see where things are headed. There are several troubling indicators of how President Trump intends to run his administration.
At first I could not figure out if the nonsensical and illogical tweets, statements, and press briefings were the sign of an administration in disarray, trying to find its bearings or something else. I have come to believe it is something else. Many pundits have already commented on the fact that every time the media or the public focuses on some inane action or statement from the president or his staff, some new, head line grabbing tweet or statement comes out. Some call President Trump the Distractor-in-Chief (DIC?). That may be part of it, but I think there is a larger more insidious goal. President Trump continually calls any reporting he does not like “fake news.” Beyond that he and his staff continually attack the media and put out statements that are proven to be untruthful, yet they double down and insist that it is true by pointing to some off-the-wall media source as the “proof” of their statements. This is deliberate — not flaky, or anti-PC, or any other excuse attributed to the activity. I say again, it is deliberate. The White House staff is deliberately and systematically trying to undermine the credibility of the serious news outlets in the United States. Coupled with the stated disdain of the intelligence community so often reiterated by the president and his advisers, there is a very deliberate effort to create an atmosphere of distrust where nothing is ground truth. Once such an atmosphere exists, the administration can say and do anything that they want to do and they will then claim black is white and only they know what is going on. Trust them. How many times has Senior Adviser Kelly Anne Conway (and others) gone on a news show and defended some outrageous statement from the president? When pressed for evidence that such statements are true, how many times has she said words to the effect that “well, the president has access to information that I do not have so he must know what he is talking about?” No proof. No logic. Only that if the president said it, it has to be true, no matter how outrageous. And how many times when personally pressed does the president decline to give proof to defend a statement and only says something along the lines of “more information will be coming out in about two weeks. It will be amazing. You won’t believe what is going on. It will surprise you. Believe me.” Have you noticed that it is always in two weeks? And then two weeks, months, years, pass and nothing more comes out.
This approach seriously undermines the credibility of the president. If anyone were to pay attention. Seemingly most Americans shrug it off as that’s “Trump being Trump” or as the “mainstream media” trying to undermine his presidency. Never mind that the media merely plays what the president or his advisers actually say and then for some strange reason ask them to provide the basis for the statement. How unfair!
You can take it to the bank that our friends and enemies are paying attention.
That is why I am so troubled. Either the president does not care that his credibility suffers, credibility that will be crucial when a real crisis hits our country, or he is risking his credibility in order to undermine the veracity of any source of information outside the White House so that only his version of the truth is available. A harsh assessment, I admit, but increasingly I am unable to come up with any other explanation for the way that he and his staff conduct business. What began as mildly amusing behavior morphed to incredulity to concerns about sanity to fear that it is intentional.
And there is more.
There are some good people working in the Trump administration. Secretary Mattis is one, Lt General McMaster is another, and others, who while I may disagree with their policy views, I respect their integrity and willingness to try to do the right thing. Many of them signed up with this administration with the caveat that they be able to pick their own people and not be micro-managed by the White House. So far, that is not happening.
Secretary Mattis has yet to get a second in command, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. He tried three times so far to get three different people in place. All rejected by the White House. There are no other political appointees below the Secretary level at DOD thus far. One may claim that we need to “drain the swamp” but the reality is that the Secretary cannot do everything by himself. Skilled, knowledgeable people with expertise in everything from procurement to regional alliances need to be in place to make U.S. policy effective. Right now, nobody. Likewise, in the State Department. Secretary Tillison’s nominees for his subordinate political positions are zero for everyone. None has gotten past the White House. Just as troubling to those that understand how such things work, last week the Mexican Foreign Minister, the direct counter part to Secretary Tillerson was in Washington for talks and the State Department did not even know he was in town, much less participate in the discussions. Only the White House inner circle participated. National Security Adviser McMaster found out last week that, in fact, he cannot pick his own staff. He tried to have a Trump campaign supporter now in charge of national intelligence for the National Security Council moved to a different job so that NSA McMaster could put a more qualified and effective person in that slot. The staffer went to the president, on the advice of Mr. Steve Bannon, and NSA McMaster was overruled. There are a multitude of similar examples were one to peel away the layers and look inside the various departments and agencies in the Executive Branch.
Even if all that is true, who cares? So what? Why write about it except for sour grapes?
There are at least two reasons to take note. The most benign concern is that our nation’s defense and foreign policies, to name two, cannot be thoroughly vetted, reviewed and implemented without the right people (any people!) in place. No matter how good the Secretary may be, he or she is only one person and cannot do it all alone. The more serious concern is that the White House staff, the close inner circle to the president, may not want any effective push back from the Defense or State Departments or other agencies. They may want only the White House inner circle to promulgate and execute policy. The Cabinet’s job is merely to act as props (see almost every signing ceremony in the White House) or cheerleaders for the president.
President Trump’s style as a businessman was to have a small, totally loyal, inner circle that carried out his decisions. By all accounts describing his style, President Trump is not much for details and makes decisions by using his “gut instincts.” His close inner circle then carries on and implements what they understand to be his intent. This may work in a real estate business, but it does not work well in an undertaking as large as the United States government, especially when the current inner circle takes great pride in stating that they have no experience. When they also refuse, or limit, the input from those that do have knowledge and expertise, something is brewing. It is either a disaster waiting to happen, or something more sinister, such as a drift towards centralized, autocratic control of the nation.
When all of the pieces of the puzzle are together — and there are more including Mr. Bannon’s view of the world, his declaration to “dismantle the administrative state,” blaming “the deep state” for the failures of their policies, lashing out at the judiciary, claiming that former President Obama is running a shadow government with the aim of stopping the Trump administration, among others — it paints a troubling picture.
At first I thought that maybe they were just experiencing growing pains, not unusual for a new administration. Then I thought that maybe the staff was just trying to deal with a loose cannon in President Trump — which could be dangerous, but the experienced hands would eventually bring him back to reality. Now I am beginning to see that it is actually a plan. What I have not decided upon is whether President Trump is the visionary using his staff, or whether Mr. Bannon is the visionary using the president to fulfill his own view of re-ordering the world.
I absolutely have not given up on the ship of state being righted and put back on a steady course. There are positive signs such as the Congress (after only about 8 months!) investigating the impact of Russian meddling on our national election. Equally soothing is that more and more Representatives and Senators, of both parties, have nicely said that the president lied when he stated that President Obama had Trump Towers and the campaign “wire tapped.” The judicial system is working to check the executive over reach of some of the president’s Executive Orders. The system is working as intended, even if in fits and starts. It remains incumbent on all Americans to keep our eyes wide open and call “foul” when appropriate. Likewise, we need to give credit where it is due. All is not lost, not even close, but I still worry. If we see this seeming chaos from self-inflicted crises within the White House, one wonders what will happen when a real crisis erupts. History teaches us that one eventually will come along. And probably sooner than later.
When it happens, that will be the true test of this administration. My nightmare scenario is given the chaos and attempts to undermine anything that runs counter to White House wishes now, while in a period of relative calm with a strong economy and no direct existential threats to our well-being, what will happen in a major crisis? Will the administration draw upon the many talented and experienced resources our nation and our government has to solve the problem or will they draw even more inward in an attempt to use the crisis to consolidate more power and move further towards autocracy?
I have no crystal ball and have no idea how things will unfold. The signs thus far leave me greatly troubled about the future of our great nation, more so than at any point in my life.
We Live In Interesting Times
Posted: November 11, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Divisiveness, Donald J. Trump, Partisan, Politics, United States 2 Comments“Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.” — Hillary Clinton in her concession speech on 9 November 2016
In her concession speech, Secretary Clinton exhibited the best of our electoral traditions and history. She lost and he won and it is time to keep an open mind about the future. Like it or not, he’s the guy.
But, man oh man, I didn’t think it would be this hard.
There is one thing that sticks in my mind as I try to get my head around the idea of a President Donald J. Trump, and that is that he is the same person on 9 November that he was on 7 November. That may not be a good thing.
So many things come to mind about the election and about the future of our country under a President Trump. I could write multiple pages, and indeed I am sure people already have and any number of books will be written about this campaign in the coming months and years. However, I won’t go into all of that now. At the same time there are a few things that I do want to mention as I, and millions of others, try to make sense of this election.
I have been around the block a few times, and have believed strongly in other candidates that lost elections. I was disappointed but did not think badly of the candidates that won. I merely disagreed with their policies compared to my candidate, but as the Rolling Stones proclaim (and apparently Mr. Trump agrees as he used it as his theme song),
“You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need.”
I am not so sure this time around.
To me, this time it is not about whether a Republican or a Democrat won or even that Secretary Clinton lost. It is that Mr. Trump won. Or at least he won the Electoral College, which in our system is all that counts. But lest we forget, for the second time in 16 years a candidate lost the election even though they won the popular vote. I will save for another time a discussion about the Electoral College. It could be anachronistic, but it is probably a good thing over all in that candidates must think about the nation as a whole, rather than individual centers of population.
So, no, it isn’t that my candidate lost. You have read in this space before about how I am confounded by Mr. Trump and his apparent lack of understanding of the important issues of our time, of the language he used while campaigning and his demonizing and/or demeaning every segment of our society save white men. That is well documented and I won’t rehash all that here. But it does have consequences.
Even though more people voted for Secretary Clinton than for Mr. Trump, I am worried that I thought the United States was something that apparently it is not. Many good people, Democrat and Republican, did not feel that Mr. Trump reflected or represented American values. What if we are wrong? What if his words and actions represent the America that we have become? That is truly chilling and worrying to me. His approach was validated. He gave validation to a worrisome fringe element in our society that now thinks it is mainstream. Before you blow a gasket, I am not inferring that all of Mr. Trump’s supporters were on the fringe. People voted for him for a vast number of reasons. But it remains a fact that his persona is not what we think of, or maybe I should say it is not what I think of, when I think of America. He took the politics of fear and anger and turned it to his personal advantage in the worst possible way. I will try to keep an open mind as his administration forms, but I will struggle to get beyond that fact.
I am particularly upset by the reaction of people close to me, and others that I have observed. Primarily women that worked in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s in an era where sexual harassment was a part of going to work. Those women experienced some form of harassment and discrimination almost daily, worked through it, and worked very hard to change the system. To them, Mr. Trump symbolizes every male that harassed them in the work place or on the streets. The women coming of age today face a totally different work place environment than their mothers and grandmothers faced. Thankfully. Unfortunately, the election of Mr. Trump in spite of his known actions, his recorded remarks and his crude on-the-record comments seem to many of these older, experienced women, to give the green light to go back to a time where women were judged on their appearance and not on their ability. It is a very sad and difficult time for them to see Mr. Trump in the White House.
One potential positive outcome of the election is that Mr. Trump, who in reality is neither a Republican nor a Democrat but more of third-party candidate that managed to get the Republican nomination, will have his opportunity to govern with the support of a Republican controlled Congress. To all of those disaffected voters who put him in the White House, stand by. In my mind this is a domestic version of President Nixon going to China. There will be no excuses if the lot of those supporters does not improve. Mr. Trump and the Republicans are in charge. They can only blame themselves if things don’t go their way. After years of “just say no”, anger and obstructionism, they have the chance to do all of the things that they promised.
But I am extremely skeptical that they can deliver. Most jobs in the Rust Belt and elsewhere were not lost to “deals” and trade pacts. They were lost to automation and technology. They aren’t coming back. The coal industry is not coming back. Steel mills are not coming back. One industry towns are not coming back. All of the things that white working class Americans think they will now see restored are extremely unlikely to return. We cannot turn back the clock to a nostalgia tinged 1950’s era. Perhaps in the coming years when the realization sets in that none of that will ever come back again, we can move forward into the 21st Century. We don’t need to bring back the old jobs, we need to educate and train our citizens for the jobs of the future. We cannot hold out for a white dominated society, we are headed for a multi-cultural society, like it or not, and no amount of anger will change that. So, perhaps when their guy is unable to deliver the goods, people will remember those days fondly, but finally move on and face reality. Perhaps that is the positive side of Mr. Trump as our president.
I suppose a true test of how willing Mr. Trump will be to bring the nation back together again will be two-fold. First, does he reach out to all of those he has offended during his campaign, and more importantly does he send a message to those that think it is now okay to demean and demonize portions of our society and tell them that he will not accept that?
Secondly, I think we will learn a lot about the direction he intends to take the country by his cabinet nominations. He hasn’t made any yet. Will he pick serious, qualified individuals willing to do what is right for our country even if it means disagreeing with the President, or will he pick a series of sycophants and has-beens? Only time will tell, but it isn’t a good sign that many of the names floated as trial balloons so far fall into the latter category.
In the end, I hope he surprises all of us and ably and well leads our nation. If he does well, our country does well. I am willing to keep an open mind and give him a chance, but it will be a short window of opportunity for him to convince me that he can keep America great.
What a Great Country!
Posted: November 9, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Divisiveness, Historical Perspective, Lifes unexpected treasures, Politics, United States 3 CommentsAs we wake up on the morning after one of the most divisive campaigns in our life times, some of us are elated, some disappointed and a lot of us are probably simply amazed at the results. Whatever we feel, as is our custom and history, it is time to move on and actually get things done.
Yesterday I had a big dose of what is best about our country. I was a sworn election judge in the state of Maryland. Other states may have other titles, or you may simply know us as poll workers. It was a great civics lesson and a great lesson in what makes this country continue to be great.
It was a very long day (nearly 15 hours on the job) but a very positive day. Election judges in Maryland are regular citizens who come forward every two years to work for their country and for their fellow citizens. They cover the spectrum of our national make up. Young (one can be a judge at 17) and old, from every ethnic group and socio-economic status, and of differing political parties, the judges are a true cross-section of America. Throughout our training and while on the job, each and every person I met was courteous, friendly, conscientious and dedicated to doing the job correctly. It was inspiring.
I can also assure our fellow citizens that the election judges on the job, at the individual polling places, are serious about the importance of their work and that they took joy in doing the job the right way. I can also assure you that both the polling process and those working on site are dedicated to allowing for each and every qualified citizen to vote. It is a great, and dare I say, satisfying process.
Even as the day wore on and we all began to sag a bit in body, there was never a let down in spirit or determination to do things correctly, by the book, and in compliance with the law. It may surprise a voter who has not had this opportunity to know the meticulous way that the process unfolds. Maryland uses paper ballots that are electronically scanned. There are three ways that they can be counted and compared and the paper ballots are retained in case of a recount or an anomaly in the electronic tabulation. There are written procedures followed meticulously that include keeping track of each and every ballot, with double and triple checks and balances and total chain of custody requirements. Every scrap of paper (ballots, multiple forms for record keeping, and polling material) are accounted for, catalogued and returned to the Board of Elections. Every two years, these workers take time off from school, work, retirement or whatever to serve their fellow citizens and to help them through the process. It was a good sign for the future of our nation.
Equally gratifying was to work with and observe the voters that came into our precinct to vote. Just as the workers represented a cross-section of our nation, so did the voters in every way imaginable. That includes the processes to ensure the visually impaired, physically challenged, and just about every other condition imaginable was able to cast their ballot. Uniformly, the voters were cheerful, excited about exercising their right to vote (even if not uniformly excited about the campaigns themselves), and demonstratively appreciative of the work being done by us at the polling place. In a particularly memorable way, whenever a young person came in and was identified as a first time voter, the judge working with them would announce it to the rest of us and all of the judges (there were about twelve of us) would shout and clap in congratulations. The smiles on those first time voters when we did that was priceless. In a campaign season that did not always highlight the best of our nation, it was exciting and refreshing to see that the voters, our neighbors, were understanding of how little acts of courtesy and kindness can transform a situation.
As we move forward into somewhat uncharted territory in our nation’s history, my hope is that the values, spirit and cooperation that I observed on election day continue as we move on to the next great adventure in our national life.
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