Just The Beginning
Posted: November 5, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Constitution, Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics, Russia, Supreme Court, United States Constitution, Vladimir Putin Leave a commentIn my lifetime, an election was usually a beginning. Most of the time, it was a positive beginning as proponents of opposing candidates and political parties were happy or sad, justified or disappointed, but generally supportive of the process and willing to give the new president a chance to see what he could accomplish. The election was over, and so most folks took a time out and turned towards the holidays and the approaching new year, and didn’t think much about politics again until Inauguration Day or later.
This year I worry that the most fractious campaign in our lifetimes will not end on Tuesday at the voting booth. Two flawed candidates are limping towards the finish line, but I am not sure how things will play out when the results are tallied. I am out of the prediction business as I have no idea who will win on 8 November but you already know what I think as to which of the two will do less harm to our country. That said, I do try to be balanced, or at least fair, in presenting my views in this space. I will endeavor to do so again today, but I am concerned that not everyone involved in the two campaigns, the most ardent supporters or haters as the case may be, will be satisfied with the outcome. I am worried that some will not only be upset about the results but that they will act on their dissatisfaction in negative ways. And let’s be blunt, when one candidate whines about the election being “rigged” because he is losing, suggests that “poll watchers” go to the inner city to make sure that voters are not “cheating” and other similar statements, the probability of a conflict increases greatly. (And I note that he only cites the “inner cities” — code for minority areas — and not rural areas or small towns. He often suggests that they exercise their Second Amendment rights while watching the polls. Can you imagine what would happen if a group of armed African-Americans showed up in a small town in Kansas to watch the voters vote?)
Having said that, I am more worried about the impact on our form of government, our law makers ability, indeed their desire, to do their jobs and the unpredictable actions of our fellow citizens. Which ever candidate wins, there are huge problems ahead. Let’s look at a Hillary Clinton victory first.
Votes are yet to be counted, results are yet to be certified, and no one knows who will win on Tuesday. Yet, Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), and Michael McCall (R-Texas) Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, as well as Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), among others, have already stated publicly that they plan to begin impeachment proceedings against Secretary Clinton should she be elected. Additionally, Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), John McCain (R-Arizona) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), among others, have clearly stated or with a wink and a nod hinted at confirming none (repeat: none) of Secretary Clinton’s appointments to the Supreme Court. Wow. Even with a sense of leavening that these statements were made under the stress of campaigns and the emotions of the moment, these men still made astounding, and frankly, un-American statements about using the law of the land to punish an election winner that they do not like. The will of the people be damned, I suppose. You will note that there is a pretty good likelihood that the Democrats will regain control of the Senate, yet I have not heard a single Democrat running for office promise not to confirm Mr. Trump’s nominees or that they will begin impeachment proceedings against him as soon as he is sworn in as president.
Some argue that there is no need for nine justices and that we have had different numbers on the Supreme Court over our history. True. But there have been nine since 1869. With Justice Scalia’s untimely death early this year, the Court has been functioning (although deferring some cases until a ninth judge is confirmed) with only eight. However, if the Republicans follow through on their threat, what is the right number? Seven? Six? No one knows what deaths may occur, or retirements may occur, or other unforeseen circumstances that would further reduce the number of Justices. Really? And what happened to the current Senate Majority Leader’s, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), promise that the next president gets to nominate a Justice, and of course the fact that our current president (we only have one at a time) has a nominee on the floor for going on seven months?
As if that is not enough, Mr. Trump himself made a similar promise in the second debate this fall. In the context of the “lock her up!” cries at his rallies, he made the following statement in response to a debate question about it should he be president.
“I am going to instruct my Attorney General to get a Special Prosecutor to look into your (Clinton’s) situation.”
The next day he reiterated his plan to prosecute Secretary Clinton when he is president. Besides being unheard of in American politics — no winning president has ever threatened to jail his losing opponent in our history like we are some kind of third world banana republic — it also exhibits Mr. Trump’s desire to use the government for his personal vendettas. It also demonstrates his lack of knowledge in that president’s are not authorized to order specific criminal investigations of individuals, not to mention political opponents. To lose the impartiality of the Department of Justice in order to pursue his own ends would undermine the very fabric of justice in our country.
These examples alone would be cause for alarm as to what will happen after the election. Actions that could destroy the delicate balance between a functioning two-party system and one where the rule of law and our Constitution is used only as a prop when it suits one’s purpose.
Of additional concern, and this really really bothers me, is the ongoing hacking of Secretary Clinton’s campaign. By the Russians. And I have heard very little concern expressed about it by any Republican, and especially none by Mr. Trump himself. Indeed, last summer he invited the Russians to hack Secretary Clinton. This is serious, people. And yet all I hear about is what is in the emails and not that they were illegally stolen by a foreign government and used to disrupt our election. (By the way they may be embarrassing but there are no “smoking guns” about illegal activity and I would argue that any large organization or campaign would be embarrassed if their internal discussions and unvarnished proposals were made public.)
Intelligence and law enforcement officials are preparing for some kind of additional cyber attack before, or on, election day. The attack could come in any number of ways, but will probably be designed to further undermine the perception of a free and fair election process. Democrats and Republicans should both be deeply concerned about this prospect. But it seems to be of little concern as compared to petty fighting over minor issues.
Let’s look at a Donald Trump victory. My concerns for our nation are not in any way lessened should Mr. Trump win. As hard as it is, I will momentarily forget that the man is temperamentally unsuited for the office, and that he has shown a remarkable lack of intellectual curiosity to learn even the basics of how the government works under the Constitution or our most basic foreign policies.
Mr. Trump currently has approximately 75 lawsuits actively pending against him. Many are long-standing complaints against him ranging from discrimination to failure to pay contractors. Most notable, a trial in a class action lawsuit against him for fraud surrounding Trump University starts 28 November. That is one of three state lawsuits against Trump University. The Trump Foundation is also under legal scrutiny for illegal fund-raising efforts and for violating laws on how such money may be spent. It is a long list. How does that impact his ability to carry out the duties of his office? How will the trials be impacted if he is president? This creates yet another opportunity for the public perception of justice to be tainted by politics.
Mr. Trump continues to refuse to release any of his tax returns so we know nothing of his business dealings, except for what he chooses to brag about. Multiple responsible inquiries have shown him to be far less successful in business than he gives himself credit for having accomplished. (By the way, it was pointed out that his final 2015 tax returns were due about two weeks ago. There is nothing to stop him from releasing those as he would not know if they were going to be audited. Not to mention that the Internal Revenue Service repeatedly stated that there is nothing stopping him from releasing them while under audit.)
The primary reason this is important, among many reasons, is that he claims to have extensive business dealings overseas, which is the basis of his claimed knowledge of foreign policy. If so, we should know what those dealings might be so that potential conflicts of interest may be identified. What checks and balances would be in place to make sure that foreign policy decisions were made to further the interests of the United States and not merely to help his business? Without this knowledge it is possible that foreign agents could compromise our interests overseas.
In this vein I find his admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin troubling. I am not so bothered by Mr. Trump’s claims that Mr. Putin is “a great leader.” Strange, but less troubling than the fact that the Russians are hacking and attempting to influence our election. The Russians, and others, are using propaganda, psychological operations (PSYOPS) and intelligence to undermine our election and thereby demonstrate to their own citizens that there is no such thing as a real democracy, it is all a sham and rigged by the powerful. This message to their own people, by using us as an example, can be very effective in keeping their own power. Mr. Trump received classified briefings on this effort. And yet, in the debates, he claims that there is no evidence that the Russians are involved and further claims that he does not trust the U.S. intelligence agencies. Wow again. He either willfully ignores the information he is given, or he is frighteningly uncaring, or he is glad that it is going on, especially if it helps him. Any one of those reasons are scary. Perhaps most scary would be that he does not believe the information because he already knows it all — a statement he has repeated concerning foreign policy, military affairs, and a host of other issues. (“I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.” — 12 November 2015)
Here is the kicker and perhaps the most dangerous of all the unknowns. How will the American people react over the long run? My question reflects how we ended up in our current presidential predicament. In my view, the current atmosphere was created by politicians promising to do things that they could not, or in some cases, never intended to deliver. Many of our fellow citizens feel abandoned by their government and suspicious of the leaders in Washington. Mr. Trump tapped into that and we are now on the verge of being one vote away from him as president. Many will rejoice and think “finally, we have someone to change things.”
That is what is worrisome. Hear me out, please. First, we have prominent Republican law makers promising that if Secretary Clinton is president they will block essentially everything she tries to do and tie her up in impeachment hearings and other vindictive investigations and hearings — mostly about things they have been investigating for four years or more and have yet to find anything of substance. In other words, more of the same from the last six years. Lots of promises but no substantive action. Isn’t that how we got here in the first place? What makes Republican law makers think that more dysfunction and lack of, you know, actual governing is going to make things better? Four more years of doing nothing is not going to heal the country and it will not endear the Republican party to future voters. Such an approach is more than a little short-sighted politically and not good for the future of our nation.
The first test is coming up soon. On 29 September 2016, about 36 hours before the government would shut down, Congress passed a Continuing Resolution to keep the government funded until 9 December and then promptly left town and haven’t been in session since. They must now come back in a lame duck session to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. However, the members of the Freedom Caucus, the Republican Tea Party group, are threatening to block all federal funding unless certain of their pet demands are met. They are also threatening to unseat Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) as Speaker of the House if he doesn’t go along with their demands, which run counter to the overall objectives of the Congress as a whole. Welcome to the post-election honey moon.
Most disturbing to me is that during his campaign Mr. Trump promises many things that he cannot do under the Constitution or that are unlikely to be supported by the Congress. When that happens, will the country react with more disappointment and lack of trust, or will something else occur? Mr. Trump’s campaign rhetoric has often bordered on inciting violence and I fear that rather than finding himself frustrated in not being able to do what he wants, he will put out “a call to action.” No one knows what form that call may take, or more to the point, how some on the fringe may interpret it. Whatever the case, it will not be good for our country.
I hope that I am wrong and that my worries are unfounded. But the indicators are not good. There will be no post-election honey moon and the prospects for civil political discourse to address urgent issues and to keep our nation on track are not promising.
Or as cartoonist Walt Kelly said in his comic strip Pogo:
“We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
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.
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.
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.
Happy New Year and Good Luck in 2016
Posted: December 31, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Donald Trump, Historical Perspective, Politically Correct, Politics, Ted Cruz, United States Constitution 1 CommentAs 2015 comes to a close, I wish each of you a wonderful new year in 2016 and hope that our country comes through the coming elections in better shape than what I fear may be the case given our experience over this past year.
I am normally an optimistic, the glass is half-full kind of guy, but I am discouraged by the political discourse of the last few months. I am concerned that it will only get worse in the new year. The rhetoric is depressing and may become more so as some candidates find that it works to their advantage to vilify others, and as some candidates become desperate to be noticed before they fade away.
I also learned long ago to stay out of the prediction game. With the right knowledge and experience, it used to be feasible to make a meaningful, if not always correct, educated guess as to the direction of certain events and the resulting policy decisions that follow. I do not feel that way anymore. Additionally, as I have expressed in previous pieces, I think that it is too early to begin discussing which candidates from which political parties will be our choices in November. I have no idea who will make it through the spring and summer and emerge as a viable candidate. Therefore, at this point in the process, I have no idea who I will vote for and I will try to keep my mind open as the campaigns progress. That said, I have already decided who I cannot vote for no matter their popularity or the alternative candidate from the other party. Out of the roughly 15 candidates combined in the Republican and Democrat parties still running (and sometimes it is hard to keep track) there are at least five that I know that I cannot vote for, no matter what. Some fall into that category because of their hateful rhetoric and others because in my view, they are just plain unqualified to lead this country. Some fall into both categories. Hopefully, they will not end up running against each other.
Logically, and historically, I know that we have experienced shameful demagoguery in campaigns past. I know also that our nation’s history has had shameful periods of racism and bigotry that were considered main stream. And as much as I would like to think that as a nation we have moved past those misguided beliefs, I know that some racists and bigots still exist in our country.
So the politics of racism, bigotry, hatred and fear — dealing in the mysterious “other” who are not like us and do not belong in our country — is, unfortunately, not new to this nation. We now have at least two leading candidates, Mr. Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), that are experts at exploiting the fear and hatred of others and who also have little use for the truth should it not coincide with their narrative. They seem to be very popular — although it is difficult to know whether that popularity will translate at the voting booth. While I am deeply disappointed in their campaigns, it is really nothing new in our history. What has truly discouraged me is the number of people who pollsters of all stripes tell us support their campaigns. I knew there were bigots and racists out there, what is discouraging is the number that seem still to exist in the year 2015. And before someone gets their hair on fire, I recognize that not all supporters of Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz are bigots or racists. I know that. However, too many seem to fit in that category. By a lot. Anger and fear are powerful motivators, but when exploited for purely personal gain, it becomes dangerous. Both Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz are well polished exploiters of those emotions. I see their hateful ways reflected in all sorts of social media and other outlets. Although I am never sure if the anonymity of social media creates more salacious comments “just because” — “trolls” that enjoy stirring things up — or if the anonymity of social media allows people to expose what is really in their hearts without fear of being considered haters, but whichever is the case, Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz through their speech and actions, make it okay to be anti-social.
Please spare me the accusations of “political correctness.” For these two candidates (and others) claiming that they do not have to be politically correct has become a crutch. It is an anti-intellectual and facile claim that assures that no substantive discussion of the issues is needed and that to be polite and not rude in political discourse is not necessary. We are the worse for it. Bigots and racists are given free rein to malign others.
Before Christmas, Danielle Allen wrote an interesting opinion piece about “political correctness.” (It can be found here.) The term, according to Professor Allen was first coined by James Wilson in 1793. James Wilson was a representative to the Continental Congress and an influential member of the committee that gave us the Constitution and was one of the original Justices of the Supreme Court. The first substantive case heard by the new court was Chisolm v. State of Georgia which established that individuals could sue states. The decision was later effectively over-turned by the Eleventh Amendment. (I am not a legal scholar, but should one want to read an interesting analysis of the case, it may be found here.) What is pertinent to this discussion, is that the rhetoric following a lazy interpretation of “politically correct” has subverted the original use of the phrase. In some ways it may be better said as “correct politically” or Justice Wilson’s emphasis on “We the People” and his belief that sovereignty rested with the “people of the United States” rather than individual states.
This interpretation was presaged by a speech of his on July 4th 1788 following the achievement of the minimum number of states needed to ratify the Constitution. In his speech he laid out the vision of the crafters of that great document, its importance and how it is up to us, the people, to vote for good leaders. He emphasized how each vote was important (perhaps because his was the deciding vote for independence in the Pennsylvania delegation). Or as he said in part in his stem-winder of a speech (original spellings used below, italics and bold are mine):
Allow me to direct your attention, in a very particular manner, to a momentous part, which, by this constitution, every citizen will frequently be called to act. All those in places of power and trust will be elected either immediately by the people; or in such a manner that their appointment will depend ultimately on such immediate election. All the derivative movements of government must spring from the original movement of the people at large. If, to this they give a sufficient force and a just direction, all the others will be governed by its controuling power. To speak without a metaphor; if the people, at their elections, take care to chuse none but representatives that are wise and good; their representatives will take care, in their turn, to chuse or appoint none but such as are wise and good also. The remark applies to every succeeding election and appointment. Thus the characters proper for public officers will be diffused from the immediate elections of the people over the remotest parts of administration. Of what immense consequence is it, then, that this primary duty should be faithfully and skillfully discharged? On the faithful and skillful discharge of it the public happiness or infelicity, under this and every other constitution, must, in a very great measure, depend. For, believe me, no government, even the best, can be happily administered by ignorant or vicious men. You will forgive me, I am sure, for endeavouring to impress upon your minds, in the strongest manner, the importance of this great duty. It is the first concoction in politics; and if an error is committed here, it can never be corrected in any subsequent process: The certain consequence must be disease. Let no one say, that he is but a single citizen; and that his ticket will be but one in the box. That one ticket may turn the election.
In other words, no government, no matter how well conceived and designed, can function properly unless good, educated, and competent people — not “ignorant or vicious men” — are elected. The government is only as good as those elected to it. In my view, we lost that principal and fundamental element to good governance with the likes of Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz.
Tom
Into The Fray 
Recent Comments