It Will Be Amazing. Believe Me.
Posted: January 28, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Constitution, Donald Trump, Freedom of the Press, Politics, Truth, United States 1 CommentAmazing: causing astonishment, great wonder, or surprise
— Merriam Webster Dictionary
We have now experienced the first week of the administration of President Donald J. Trump. And it was quite a week. I am not sure that the country can survive many more of these types of weeks. Among other highlights we have the following:
- A public battle over the size of the crowd on Inauguration Day (somehow with Mr. Trump it always involves size), including a personal call from the president to the head of the National Park Service to have him produce pictures to prove he had the biggest crowd ever. “Period.” There are no such pictures.
- In his first full day in office, he went to the CIA, stood in front of the Wall of Heroes, and proceeded to mislead about crowd sizes, the role of the media, and deny that he said the intelligence community was like “Nazi Germany.” I watched it live and not once did he mention the ultimate sacrifice of those listed on the wall, some of whom still cannot be named because of the sensitivity of their actions. They died for their country yet somehow it was all about him. I have been to the Wall. It is humbling. It was appalling to see our president be so unaware, or uncaring, of his surroundings and their meaning.
- A senior adviser to the president introduced the administration’s use of “alternative facts.”
- A claim by the president that 3 to 5 million “illegals” voted in the presidential election and that every single one of them voted for Secretary Hillary Clinton. No proof was provided.
- A self-created diplomatic crisis with our neighbors in Mexico when they said that they would not pay for a wall along the border.
- A declaration that torture works and should be used in interrogations because terrorists do a lot worse than that. Torture is illegal under U.S. law including the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution and under international law.
- A draft Executive Order to bring back the “black sites” overseas where the CIA and other agencies can take terrorists secretly and interrogate them outside of international and U.S. law. The new Director of the CIA and the new Secretary of Defense say they were not consulted on the order.
- A presidential pronouncement that lifting sanctions on Russia might be a good thing. This while we still await the results of inquiries into their interference with our election and while they still illegally occupy Crimea and other parts of Ukraine.
- An Executive Order halting immigration from seven Muslim countries including Iraq. We currently have troops on the ground along side Iraqi military units fighting ISIS. We will arm them and train them and send them into battle, but we will not let them into the country. The ban includes those in danger because they worked with and helped U.S. forces as interpreters, informants, and fighters.
- A presidential statement that his immigration ban is not anti-Islam, even though the only countries banned are Islamic and the president said that Christians from those countries would be admitted. A gentle reminder may be in order that our Constitution prohibits discrimination due to one’s religion.
- A host of other Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda that create questions about the future of programs and freeze numerous regulations from the Affordable Care Act to inspections of commercial airliners.
There are more, but you get the idea. Taken as a whole it is amazing. Depending on your view of President Trump, it is amazing good or it is amazing bad. But most of us can agree that as a whole his actions to date meet Webster Merriam Dictionary definitions and are certainly creating “astonishment” and “surprise”. We may also “wonder” what is going on?
There are several ways to look at his words and actions thus far. Some may think that President Trump is the ultimate egotist, thin-skinned and overly concerned about being the best ever — it is all about him and very little about the country’s well-being. Some may say that he and his administration are rookies and that many of the rough patches will smooth out as they get accustomed to governing rather than campaigning — which is not unusual with changes in administrations. Some may say that no one has ever told him “no” and that he is used to running a one man show and that eventually he will figure out that even though he ran as an autocrat, that is not how our government works. Some may think that he is, simply put, a nut case. Some may think that he is doing exactly what they voted for him to do and by golly he is out there doing it.
Of course, some or all of those opinions may be true in part or in whole. The real question is whether the nation as we know it will withstand his impetuous actions and words. And no, that is not a “sky is falling” we are all doomed statement. It is too early to see how all of this will settle out. More on that in a minute, but first let me digress for a few sentences.
Famously in the aftermath of the election, it was said that members of the press did not take him seriously, but they took his statements literally, while his supporters took him seriously but did not take his words literally. An interesting way of looking at things. Maybe we should take him both literally and seriously as his actions thus far seem to indicate that he looks at himself that way. Regardless, here is the problem.
As president, words matter. What the president says is often taken literally, or taken as a signal of intentions, in foreign capitals and can impact international relations, trade, economic matters and other elements of our national interest. When he says he is building the wall and Mexico will pay for it with a 20% tax, the leadership in Mexico has to take him seriously. When he says that 3 to 5 million illegals voted in the election and therefore it was rigged (yet he won!) it plays right into the hands of those in Moscow and other places that Americans are no better off than they are and that democracy is a sham. People around the world listen. I have no idea if he believes what he says or not, but he must understand that as President and Commander-in-Chief he can no longer say the first thing that pops into his head.
There is an old military saying that he should become familiar with — “no plan survives contact with the enemy.” Our opponents always have a vote in what happens because they have their own self interests and national goals to defend. You can slap a 20% tariff on another country out of pique, but you have no say in what they do in return. And you can be sure that they will react, often in ways that are unpredictable and harmful to our own interests.
Here is my opinion of Mr. Trump’s actions so far. They are based on two factors. He has never functioned as a part of government or of the military. In his life all he has ever had to do was say he wanted something done, and it pretty much got done. The government does not work like that. For better or for worse, there are a lot of moving parts. The president alone cannot change laws or hand down court rulings.
The second factor is that much of Mr. Trump’s success, however big or small or entangled with overseas governments and entities (we still wait for him to reveal their extent), his biggest successes are in marketing and self-promoting — branding as it is now called. His brand is brash and huge and a take no prisoners approach. I am surmising that in his mind, he needs to keep the brand alive with his supporters and therefore he is continuing to be outrageous, bullying and a man of action. All of that feeds back into his own perception of himself as the best at whatever he does and the cycle continues. When it stops is anyone’s guess.
I am very concerned about the damage to our world position of leadership that will occur if he continues on his “America First” doctrine. It may be a good marketing slogan, but isolationism is not in our own best interest and does not help us with our interests overseas. Our history is replete with such attempts in our past and the result inevitably is war or a depression or both. Neither of those outcomes are in our national interests.
I am less concerned about his actions thus far on the domestic front. When looked at carefully, most of his Executive Orders are more like outlines of where he would like to go. He is fairly restricted in what he can and cannot do without the House and Senate in agreement. Thus far the Republican controlled Congress has begun to realize that governing, rather than just opposing the other party’s initiatives, is hard to do. The first real test of President Trump will be when enough Republicans say “no” to one of his proposals. Hopefully when Congress collectively says no, it will be a political lesson to Mr. Trump and not result in a Constitutional crisis.
My biggest and most fundamental concern are his and his administration’s attacks on the First Amendment. Most modern presidents have had a dim view of the media coverage they receive and some have had an adversarial relationship with the press. That’s fine and to some extent it is good for our Republic’s health. However it does no one any good for President Trump to continually and perpetually call the press dishonest, the worst people on earth, liars or any of the other epitaphs that he throws their way. His senior adviser told the press to “shut up.” He went on to call the press the “opposition party” — not the Democrats. The attacks come because the press reports what Mr. Trump and his advisers actually do and say. As they used to say, “let’s go to the video tape!” It’s there. It’s a matter of public record and yet Mr. Trump continues to deny that a given action or statement took place. This is dangerous.
I fear that over time the outrageous comments and attacks on the press will become old news. People will stop paying attention. Or worse — justify the outrageous and potentially unconstitutional behavior because we got some jobs back, or some other narrow, short-range goal at the expense of what we hold dear. Most autocrats gain power that way.
None of us has any idea how the next four years will unfold. Based on the last week, we know that it will indeed be amazing. I trust that the Congress and the American people will begin insisting that we get more from our president than a sweeping “believe me” when it comes to critical issues.
But Do They Have A Football Team?
Posted: January 18, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Constitution, Electoral College, Historical Perspective, Politics, Presidential primaries 1 CommentMuch has been written and discussed lately concerning the Electoral College. Some argue that it is an anachronism that outlived its usefulness. Others argue that it is integral to the foundation of our republic and must stay in place. There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue and it seems that most people’s opinions are colored by whether they see our country as one nation, indivisible — as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance — or whether they see it as a collection of united states.
Although the discussions surrounding the Electoral College pop up every four years in conjunction with presidential elections , they are more noticeable this time around given that we have two presidents out of the last three (George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump) that lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College. There are only three other times in our entire history where this happened. John Quincy Adams became president in 1824 through a vote in the House of Representatives. Although Andrew Jackson won more Electoral College votes, he did not win enough to get a majority as required under the Twelfth Amendment (more on that later) and the House elected Mr. Adams. In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes became our president despite having lost the popular vote and the Electoral College vote — until 20 disputed electoral votes were changed under a compromise between Republicans and Democrats and awarded to Mr. Hayes. This despite the fact the his opponent Samuel J. Tilden not only had more popular votes, but had a majority of the vote (just over 50%). And we think our current election was contentious. The only other time that the Electoral College victory came despite losing the popular vote was in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison defeated the incumbent president Grover Cleveland by campaigning to keep trade tariffs high to protect American jobs. Some things don’t change.
For the next 124 years there were no instances of a candidate losing the popular vote but still winning the Electoral College vote. And now in the first sixteen years of the 21st century it happened twice. Thus the argument over whether it is still a valid way to elect our presidents.
To fully understand the issue, a quick history of the reasons for the Electoral College are in order. Briefly stated, it was established because our esteemed Founding Fathers did not want the citizens of the new United States to elect the president. Remember that their ideal for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was really meant for white wealthy males. The pursuit of happiness meant property, and wealth meant education. The masses were considered unfit and untrustworthy to elect the “real” leaders of the nation. Thus the president was elected by the Electoral College and United States Senators were elected by the legislatures of each state. The House of Representatives was the “people’s house” — the safety valve for allowing the average citizen to participate. Note that Senators are elected for six years (designed to provide stability and experience) and the House is elected every two years, making it easily changeable.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution created the Electoral College as the means to elect the President and the Vice President. In practice it did not work out so well and the procedure was modified through the Twelfth Amendment when it was ratified in 1804. All subsequent elections have been carried out under that amendment. Clearly a precedent was set that if our method of electing the president is not efficient or effective, then it can be changed.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution was replaced by the Seventeenth Amendment when it was ratified in 1913 and provided for the direct election of Senators, vice having them elected by state legislatures. This is another precedent that our voting procedures can change with the times.
Both of these changes are relevant to the arguments for and against the continued use of the Electoral College. The arguments are cogent on both sides of the issue, although passions sometimes run rampant rather than logic or historical facts.
Some of the arguments for eliminating the Electoral College, or to significantly change the way that it works, include the following.
- Our presidential election process is not democratic. It is the only national office where “one person, one vote” does not apply. As has happened, the voice of the people can be muted or eliminated by the electors choosing someone who did not win the popular vote.
- Originally Senators were picked in a manner very similar to the Electoral College voters. That process was changed with an amendment to the Constitution to allow direct voting. If that can change because the original purpose for state legislators to vote for Senators changed, then that same argument for the purpose of the Electoral College is no longer relevant. We now have an educated citizenry with easy access to communications and an understanding of the issues.
- The Electoral College was meant to be a check on the whims of the citizens. Most states now require the electoral voters to match the results of the popular vote in their state, thus the original purpose of the college is no longer followed.
- Too much power is invested in smaller states relative to their population. For example, one electoral vote in Wyoming equals 142,741 people whereas in New York one electoral vote equals 519,075 people. One can argue that this is patently unfair to all voters, and gives disproportionate power to states with small populations.
- The House of Representatives could elect the next president and in doing so totally ignore the wishes of the electorate. This would happen if the Electoral College vote ends in a tie, a mathematical possibility unrelated to the national popular vote results. The vote in the House is by state — one state, one vote — thus giving Rhode Island the exact same say in choosing a president as Texas.
- It solidifies a two-party system and precludes the possibility of other candidates making a meaningful run for president.
- A president may punish a state that voted for his/her opponent even though many citizens of that state voted for the winner.
- Presidential candidates ignore states that are safely in their camp or that they believe will not vote in their favor. They end up not visiting large states (no serious campaigning by either candidate in New York, California, Texas for example) and small states (no serious campaigning in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming for example). They only campaign in a handful (about ten) of swing states.
Some of the arguments for keeping the Electoral College as it is include the following.
- The Electoral College protects states rights. Small states would lose their voice in presidential elections in favor of states with large populations. Candidates would only focus on states such as New York, California, Texas and Florida.
- The two-party system is preserved. Such a political system is proven to be the best form for governing in the United States through competing political parties and their ideas . If the Electoral College is eliminated in favor of directly voting for candidates, multiple candidates could conceivably run and splinter the popular vote. This could allow a candidate with only 20 or 30% of the vote to win.
- The Electoral College embodies our nation’s principle of federalism and eliminating it could be the first step in dismantling that system of governing.
- Only the “coastal elites” in large cities would get presidential attention.
- No one should mess with what the Founding Fathers created. They knew what they were doing.
- To change or abolish the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment. This process may open the door to other changes to our Constitution.
- A victory in the Electoral College gives the president the legal authority to govern all of the states and all of the population.
To me, the strongest argument for changing or eliminating the system is that states with small populations have a disproportionate impact on the election. The strongest argument for keeping our current process is to prevent a candidate from winning in a race with multiple candidates and garnishing only a small percentage of the popular vote.
Additionally, given the current political climate in our nation, any attempt now to change the Constitution would probably open a Pandora’s Box of other issues that could fundamentally change our Constitution and thus our way of life.
Although it goes against my preference, I reluctantly conclude that keeping the Electoral College is, at least for now, the best thing for our country.
And no, the Electoral College does not have a football team. And that’s too bad.
Follow the Money
Posted: January 3, 2017 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Constitution, Donald Trump, Politics, Russia, United States, Vladimir Putin Leave a commentI am not by nature a conspiracy theorist. I have a healthy sense of skepticism about would-be conspiracies and I normally take things at face value until I can see that the facts point in a different direction. That said, there is an increasing number of people who are beginning to wonder about President-elect Donald J. Trump and his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian oligarchs. I am not saying that there is an untoward relationship, or necessarily a relationship of any kind, I am just saying that people are beginning to wonder what is going on. Perhaps when Congress conducts the investigation into the Russian interference with our recently completed election, they will dig deeper into the situation and see if there is any connection to all of the dots that are there.
And what are those dots you may ask? Off the top of my head, let’s name a few.
- At the end of July 2016, following the announcement that the U.S. intelligence services had “a high confidence” that the Russian government was behind an intrusion into the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), President-elect Trump said at a news conference in reference to Secretary Hillary Clinton’s emails, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
- At that same press conference, the last one he held (we are now at nearly six months and counting), he seemed to indicate that the Russian annexation of Crimea and continued efforts against Ukraine were acceptable and that as president he may lift sanctions against Russia. When specifically asked if he would recognize the annexation of Crimea he said, “We’ll be looking at that. Yeah, we’ll be looking.”
- Last summer President-elect Trump said in an interview that he did not know if he would fulfill the nation’s NATO obligations in Europe. To him, it depended on whether or not they had paid their bills. Such a stance is in direct conflict with decades of U.S. policy founded on collective defense. Such a stance is also extremely encouraging to Russia as their long-standing policy goal is to break up NATO and undermine the European Union.
- In August 2016, Roger Stone, a close adviser to the president-elect hinted that hacked emails from the Clinton campaign manager would be forthcoming. This is before they were actually released.
- In the lead-up to the election, seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agreed and the Director of National Intelligence announced that the Russians were attempting to interfere with the election.
- After the election the U.S intelligence agencies put forward that the Russians were releasing the DNC emails to try to influence the election in favor of Mr. Trump.
- President Obama called on the intelligence agencies to provide a report before he leaves office on the extent of Russian involvement. A bi-partisan group of Senators is calling for a Congressional investigation of the Russian involvement and for greater sanctions on Russia than those already imposed. The president-elect does not agree that either is necessary.
- As post-election press coverage of the Russian attempts increased (finally moving from being preoccupied with the embarrassing, but relatively normal content of the emails to focusing on the attempts of a foreign government to tamper with our election), President-elect Trump and his transition team belittled the U.S. intelligence community and called the notion “laughable” and “ridiculous.” Or as Mr. Trump said, “I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it.”
- In response to U.S. actions against Russia, the president-elect dismissively said “I think it’s time we get on with our lives.” And later he said, “It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things.”
- President-elect Trump continually compliments Mr. Putin over each and every thing, especially with his Twitter praise of the Russian dictator.
- On New Year’s Eve President-elect Trump had this to add, “I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.”
As the conservative columnist Mr. George Will would say, “Well.”
In and of themselves such continued admiration for a dictator and a dismissive attitude towards the very people who will need to help him keep our country safe would be troubling. Equally troubling would be the president-elect’s dismissing a foreign power’s attempts to change our election. Troubling, but perhaps not worthy of the conspiracy theorists. Until one puts it all in context with other statements and actions.
- The president-elect continues to keep the nation in the dark about his business transactions and possible commercial connections to President Putin and/or other Russian oligarchs and/or other world leaders and some very shady characters.
- The president-elect continues to refuse to release his tax returns so that the American people can judge for themselves whether or not the president-elect has conflicts of interest that could impair his ability to do the right thing for the country.
- Due to his many bankruptcies, President-elect Trump had trouble raising money from U.S. banks for his business ventures. Consequently, he went outside the country to raise cash. Among other foreign entities, his son Donald Trump, Jr. said that Russian money was behind some of the projects. As he said in 2008, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
- For much of the past summer, Mr. Paul Manafort was the Trump campaign manager. Before working for the Trump campaign he was for many years a senior adviser to Viktor Yanukovych. Mr. Yanukovych was the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister before his ouster which resulted in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Mr. Yanukovych is now in Moscow and remains close to President Putin.
- LT. General Michael Flynn, USA (ret) is President-elect Trump’s designated National Security Adviser. General Flynn was notoriously known for a paid speaking engagement in Russia, doing an unflattering assessment of the U.S. on Russian Television and cozying up to President Putin at dinner. And along the way, comparing CNN, MSNBC, and other U.S. news networks to the state-run system in Russia.
- The president-elect’s nominee for Secretary of State Mr. Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon-Mobil is on the record in favor of lifting sanctions against Russia.
- There have been reports, as yet unverified, that there were secret communications during the campaign between the president-elect and/or senior campaign staff and the representatives of Mr. Putin.
You get the idea.
I am not sure what we should make of all that (and there’s more but that should be enough). One or two or three of those developments would be interesting, but perhaps not alarming. When taken together, it paints a picture that makes it easier to understand why a would-be conspiracy theorist could have a field day.
I hope that there is no fire, but there does seem to be a lot of smoke. So, what to make of it? If the president-elect indeed wants to “drain the swamp” he can easily do so by starting with himself. If there is nothing to hide, if there is “no there, there” then shine a light on his business dealings, detail where the conflicts may arise, detail how he will build a fire wall between himself and his business dealings and release his tax returns, as a start.
There is no need for a witch hunt. There is no need for the president-elect to be challenged at every turn as the public increasingly wonders about his intentions and probable conflicts of interest. Just do the right thing. The same thing that every president and presidential candidate has done for decades. Tell the truth. Put it out there. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the American people follow the money and see where it leads.
Recall that the theme song for Mr. Trump’s “reality” show The Apprentice was “For the Love of Money” by the O’Jays. It could become the president-elect’s theme song as well.
It’s Not Funny Anymore
Posted: December 13, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Donald Trump, Politics, Russia, Sanctions, Vladimir Putin Leave a comment“What in the wide, wide, World of Sports is going on here?”
— Slim Pickens as “Taggart” in Blazing Saddles
I made a promise to myself, and to many others, that I would give President-Elect Donald J. Trump a chance to prove himself as our next president. After all, I reasoned, he has yet to take office, has not had any Cabinet officers confirmed or proposed any legislation to the Congress. I thought to myself, let’s give him a chance and see what he actually does rather than what he might do.
Too late. Mr. Trump is already showing us what kind of president he will be. In so doing, it appears to me that he has forgotten that he is not yet the president. We only have one president at a time and currently Barack Obama is our president, like it or not. Yet Mr. Trump has already meddled in foreign affairs, the market place, labor union affairs, and other areas properly the purview of the person that is the president. In addition he continues to refuse to reveal anything about his business interests, or tax returns or any other aspect of his dealings that may well impact his decisions as president. Mr. Trump was to have a news conference this Thursday to outline how he will deal with all of those interests, but he announced yesterday that the news conference has been deferred to an unspecified date in January. Don’t count on him actually holding it. Despite frequent promises, he has not held a news conference since 27 July 2016. In that one, he famously invited the Russians to hack Secretary Hillary Clinton’s emails.
My biggest concerns with his actions thus far relate to national security. He has been reckless in his statements and actions to date. One can argue that in the United States domestic economic concerns are the biggest motivators to the voting public. However, the number one role of a national government is national security. If the government cannot protect its citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic, then it has failed. Otherwise, there is no ability to focus on any other aspect of government. I find that Mr. Trump is woefully uninformed and reckless in his actions thus far and has already put our national interests in jeopardy. One can only imagine what may take place once he assumes the office.
If you have only glanced at the news (real news, not fake news) you know that Mr. Trump has muddled our relations with both China and Taiwan. His original conversation with the Taiwanese President sent shock waves through our diplomatic corps and the Chinese were not amused. This week, Mr. Trump compounded the mess by saying in an interview on Fox News Sunday that in essence, his comments on China and Taiwan was an opening gambit in trade negotiations. This thrilled Taiwan because now they are considered bargaining chips in our relations with China. Their take away over the last 48 hours is that Mr. Trump would not expand the relationship with Taiwan but rather bargain them away as a pawn if it meant a “good deal” with China on trade. In only a few days he managed to scare and to irritate both a friend and a foe, without stating any clear policy to move forward.
There are always new policies and ways of doing business with each new administration. But as they say on Monday Night Football, “c’mon man!”
Most troubling, and seriously dangerous, is Mr. Trump’s reaction to the profoundly disturbing news that the Russian involvement in the presidential election is much deeper than imagined. As I have written in this space before, it was disturbing to me that during the campaign the discussion was about the juicy tidbits in the hacked information and not that it was illegally obtained through the auspices of a foreign nation. If you have not recently read about the intricate details, there is a primer in the New York Times that provides the outline of the case and what is known and unknown.
In short, the Russians have been acting deliberately to interfere with our election in a wide variety of ways. One can argue whether the intent was to “merely” undermine the integrity of the democratic process or whether it was actively trying to derail Secretary Clinton’s campaign in order to help Mr. Trump. Either way, we as a nation should be outraged and demand an investigation.
Unless you are Mr. Trump or his advisers that is. They repeatedly called the notion “laughable” and “ridiculous.” Or as Mr. Trump said on Sunday;
“I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it. I don’t know why, and I think it’s just — you know, they talked about all sorts of things. Every week it’s another excuse. We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College.”
— Mr. Donald J. Trump on Fox News Sunday on 11 December 2016
This followed a Friday night press release where they ridiculed the CIA and Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that he does not take the daily intelligence briefs because “I am a smart person.”
It baffles me why Mr. Trump and his advisers didn’t just say something along the lines of this:
We are deeply troubled by the revelations of possible Russian intrusion into the 2016 presidential election. While there is no evidence that the election results were tampered with or otherwise illegitimate we welcome the Congressional investigation into what happened in order to confirm the basic tenets of our democracy. President-Elect Trump looks forward to working closely with the intelligence community to keep our nation safe.
Here is the problem. He must believe that the CIA and other intelligence agencies — which are unanimous in their conclusion that the Russians tried to influence the election, but not on why they did so — are not good at their job and politicized. Either or both assumptions are dangerous to our well-being. Today Michael V. Hayden, former director of the NSA and later of the CIA wrote an opinion piece that explains the danger. The question is not really about whether or not there are political overtones to the Russian involvement or what their intent may be. The real question is why Mr. Trump refuses to seek the assistance of the intelligence agencies in solving problems and to use the information to help inform his decisions. An adversarial relationship with the intelligence agencies is not going to help protect our nation. To be dismissive of the information that they provide is reckless.
Through my personal experience and confirmed by all knowledgeable accounts, the members of our intelligence communities work very hard to keep us safe. More importantly in this context, they are career professionals that have faithfully served both Republicans and Democrats. They are apolitical. They seek only the facts.
There are cultural differences between the agencies, which could be used to the new president’s advantage rather than as a weapon to delegitimize their efforts. For example, the CIA lives in a mushy world where the preponderance of evidence gives them signals to interpret events and to predict potential adversarial relationships in order to inform decision makers as they set policy. They themselves do not set any policies. The FBI on the other hand, has a different culture. They are a law enforcement agency that works to convict criminals and others in a court of law. They must gather proof beyond a reasonable doubt that can stand up in court. An entirely different mission. Add to that the fact that the CIA is focused on the international scene and that the FBI has an internal domestic focus. Thus, it shouldn’t be surprising that there are areas for disagreement as to the degree of surety about a particular case.
Look at it another way. Many CIA employees risk their lives to gather information to keep our nation safe. How motivated are they going to be to do so if the Commander-in-Chief basically calls them liars and political operatives attempting to “re-litigate the election”?
As a side note, but related, Mr. Trump seemingly due to his thin skin and lack of understanding, attacks anyone that he surmises does not support his election. And that happens to anybody that does not tout his “landslide” victory. I have yet to conclude whether Mr. Trump’s numerous untruths are the result of wishful thinking, studied ignorance or outright lies. I suppose it could be all three, but it is continual. Let’s just use the election results as an example. Mr. Trump claims that he won the election in a landslide. The fact is that his percentage of electoral votes ranks him 46th out of the 58 presidential elections in our history. Not even the top half. He is also losing to Secretary Clinton in the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes — her total is more than that received by any presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama — a result he claims is the result of “millions” of illegal voters that otherwise would have afforded him the outright win. There is no proof of any voter fraud, much less “millions.” I could go on but I don’t have enough time or space to enumerate the misinformation that comes from him and his aides — even if I just limited it to the last seven days.
This is dangerous. We need an informed and truthful president — or at least one that doesn’t create his own facts.
Even more troubling is his cozy relationship with Russia and seemingly endless admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Let’s take a look at but a few examples.
Mr. Trump’s son said that Russian investors are a major factor in the family business. Or more precisely he said, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Members of his campaign and future administration have close business ties with Russia, including his national security adviser LT General Michael Flynn, USA (ret.). He famously sat at a banquet with Mr. Putin and lambasted American news media outlets during a Russian propaganda television broadcast.
Mr. Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State is a personal friend of Mr. Putin and was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship in 2013. Oh, by the way, Mr. Rex Tillerson, as the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, has done a lot of business with Mr. Putin and other Russian oligarchs over oil. Secretary-nominee Tillerson is a staunch advocate for removing sanctions against Russia imposed after Russia illegally annexed Crimea. He is quoted as saying the sanctions cost his company one billion dollars. I am sure that will have no bearing in his dealings with the Russians.
I have no doubt that Mr. Trump did not personally collude with the Russians to interfere with the election and I am equally sure that no actual votes cast changed as a result of the Russian actions. I do feel strongly that their actions did impact the election, but it is impossible to know whether the outcome would have been any different without the Russian efforts. Mr. Trump will be our president.
That said, I think it perfectly reasonable to investigate the extent and intent of Russian interference. I think it perfectly reasonable to investigate Mr. Tillerson’s ties to Russia and his other dealings. I think it perfectly reasonable to investigate Mr. Trump’s business dealings and relations with foreign powers. I think it perfectly reasonable for Mr. Trump to continue to receive pressure to release his tax returns and to build a firewall between himself and his businesses — just like everyone that works for him will have to do.
Thankfully, members of the Senate are going to do that on a bi-partisan basis. They should dig deep and hard. The point is not to undo the election. That will not happen. The point is make sure that undue influence from foreign powers is deterred in future elections and to make sure that going forward, the ties to Russia that are obvious to all but Mr. Trump do not inhibit the national interests of the United States of America. Our nation and citizens come before the business interests of the billionaires that apparently will be running our country. Let’s keep the pressure on Congress to provide the over sight needed to keep our nation safe.
A Test Of Patience
Posted: November 28, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Donald Trump, Partisan, Politics, United States, United States Constitution Leave a commentIn this space I recently wrote that I would be patient and give President-elect Donald J. Trump a chance to show that he understands what it takes to lead this country and to deal with the many issues confronting us today. As we approach the three-week mark from the election, and as Secretary Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote now approaches 2.5 million more votes than what Mr. Trump received, I find that my patience is being severely tested on many levels. I am keeping an open mind, but several troubling incidents surrounding his transition are making it difficult.
One begins to wonder if he really understands what it means to be President of the United States. Admittedly, we are only three weeks into the process and he deserves more time to get his administration and, frankly, his act together. Few (and I suspect that does not include Mr. Trump) truly thought that he would win the election. He did, and now he and his aides are facing a steep learning curve to get ready to serve the country. Not unprecedented, especially since he has no prior governing experience. That said, there are several troubling aspects to his transition that signal that he may not be ready, and even more troubling, unwilling, to assume the responsibilities of the office in a manner consistent with the customs and traditions of our great country. It appears that he has not yet figured out that he now works for us, the citizens that hired him, rather than the other way around. It has become a cliché that he promised to “shake things up” and that he was a non-traditional candidate so expect him to be a non-traditional president. I get it. However there are certain basic norms of good governing and representing our country that need to be appreciated and adopted by him.
Please! Take away his cell phone and take away his Twitter account!
Extremely troubling to this observer is his what can only be called a bizarre Tweet yesterday claiming that he actually won the popular vote. (Why do we call it the “popular vote” since it is the vote? It is the Electoral College that is the “other” vote.) He said that:
“In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
No evidence. No proof. Just a reaction to the continued reporting that the gap in the vote continues to grow and another example of his wild and undisciplined need to lash out whenever he is criticized. Fake news presented as a fact. For a president-elect to make such a pronouncement is a serious threat to the legitimacy of our nation and the voting process. Very troubling. Even as he condemns the efforts of Dr. Jill Stein, the candidate of the Green Party to get recounts in Wisconsin and possibly Michigan and Pennsylvania where the margin of victory was very, very thin, he gives the best reason yet for holding such a recount. Investigate the results, in accordance with the law and established procedures, and see if all is okay. Even Secretary Clinton’s senior aides say that a recount is unlikely to change the result. So what is Mr. Trump’s problem?
Further evidence of his thin skin — and let’s face it, Democrat or Republican every president in this day and age is going to be criticized for something by someone every day — is his Tweet about the “totally biased” show that contains “nothing funny at all” when Saturday Night Live did a skit on him after the election (he has gone after them before). Stand by.
But here is what is most bothersome. He goes after SNL and other media presentations, which arguably is beneath the expected stature of the president-elect, but he does not go after the white supremacists that now believe they have a leader in Mr. Trump. He has called for unity and in an interview with, as he calls it, the “failing” New York Times, Mr. Trump said that “I disavow and condemn them.”
My question is if that is so, and he claims that no one reads the newspapers anymore, and that he wants to communicate directly with America by using Twitter, why hasn’t he sent a Tweet, or better yet, a series of them, specifically denouncing them, their leaders and their actions? For that matter, just saying “I want unity” is not the same thing as making a coherent speech to the American people, and I don’t mean on YouTube which appears to be his other outlet of choice. How about a speech that lays out his plan to unite us and specifically denounces the hate crimes that have sprung up around the country following his election? To borrow from the old Nike ads, “just do it.” Incidentally, Mr. Trump has not held a news conference since July. Just sayin’.
There may be a reason why he does not more forcefully denounce the white supremacists and other haters. Another way that we can judge Mr. Trump and his administration is by the people that he picks to fill key jobs. This is still a work in progress, but already some troubling appointments and processes are coming to the fore. To me, it is a bad sign that among his first three appointments were Mr. Steve Bannon and Lt. General Michael T. Flynn, USA (ret.). Before joining the Trump campaign, Mr. Bannon was the chief of Breitbart News, a publication known for supporting the white supremacist movement. (They call themselves the alt-right, but if you’ve seen any of their work, it is just another name for white supremacist filth.) General Flynn is known for sharing fake news in his speeches (such as saying Democrats in Florida tried to impose Sharia law) and his hard-line anti-Islamic rhetoric includes this memorable line in a speech that I am sure warmed the hearts of our ISIS enemies, as it is great propaganda for them:
“We are facing another ‘ism,’ just like we faced Nazism, and fascism, and imperialism and communism. This is Islamism, it is a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people on this planet and it has to be excised.”
So he believes a religion is the same as fascism and communism? 1.7 billion people need to be “excised”? Does that mean kill them all?
Both men are favorites of the white supremacists and so it is more than a little scary that the two most influential men in his administration that do not need Congressional approval to serve, are both haters of segments of our nation, and a larger segment of the world.
Published reports recount that Mr. Trump has been offered the same daily intelligence brief that the current president gets. In three weeks, he has received the brief only twice, rather than daily. (Vice President Pence, thankfully, is reported to take the brief almost every day.) The stated reason is that “he is busy.” I suspect that it has more to do with the influence of General Flynn who claims to know more than the briefers, and supposedly told Mr. Trump that the intelligence he was getting as a candidate was “wrong”. If Mr. Trump has time to meet with business associates from India and elsewhere during his working days, much less to Tweet so much, it would seem he could take a brief more than twice in twenty days. I fear that it reflects his lack of intellectual curiosity and his propensity to “wing it” rather than to have, you know, actual facts.
Other potential Cabinet appointments announced or considered by the Trump administration, such as South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) may not have vast national or international experience, but I am at least confident that they are principled, earnest and respected individuals. As Mr. Trump fills out his Cabinet, I hope that we see more nominations in line with the likes of Governor Haley and none in the line of General Flynn.
Surprisingly there is a very public battle over the nomination for Secretary of State. This will tell us a lot about the future of the Trump administration and their methods of governing. Mr. Trump seems to be favoring former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) as his choice. The Governor is another individual that I can respect as having principles and a love for our country that is greater than his own ambitions. In a nearly unprecedented move yesterday, leading Trump transition team advisers such as Kellyanne Conway were on the morning news shows publicly campaigning against Mr. Romney’s selection. Statements and reports indicate that the Trump insiders, with the exception of Vice President-elect Pence, are pushing hard for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R). Mr. Giuliani’s credentials are thin at best and if voters thought that Secretary Clinton’s speeches were over paid and to the wrong people, look up Mr. Giuliani’s record of having given speeches at very high prices to some not-so-nice folks around the world. If Mr. Trump picks Mr. Giuliani over Mr. Romney (or another equally qualified individual) that will be a tremendous signal that he cares more about “loyalty” to him personally rather than what is best for the country.
Finally, and equally trying of my patience, and I really am trying because if he does well, we all do well, is his refusal to divest or otherwise separate himself from his business dealings. To questions about releasing his tax returns and his intent to divest himself of his businesses, he basically said in interviews, “I don’t have to. I won.” He further pointed out that under the law, he has to do neither, which is true. The president and vice president are exempt under the law.
One would hope that a great leader would recognize the inherent doubt and constant conflict that will ensue if many of our citizens wonder about his decisions — are they based on the nation’s needs or on his personal business needs? Importantly, a great leader would recognize that although perhaps legal, it is not ethical. If everyone that will serve in his cabinet and below will be required to follow the law over conflicts of interest, tax returns and the like, shouldn’t the man at the top also reveal this information? To me, this will be another test of his character. Does he hide behind the law and continue with his “I won” mantra, or does he man up and do the right thing?
Placing his business dealings with his children, while they continue to sit in on high level meetings with foreign leaders, as has happened twice already in the last ten days, does not solve the problem. There are so many twists and turns in this story that the more he enlightens the nation, the more credible he becomes and the better able he will be to focus on the nation’s issues. We shall see.
It is early and there is still a chance for Mr. Trump to demonstrate that we should trust him and his decision-making ability. Unfortunately, the early signs are not all positive. The time between now and the first of the year will tell us a lot about the fate of our country in his hands over the coming years. The early signs seem to indicate that it will be a bumpy 2017. Hold on to your hats.
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.
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.”
Taxation Without Representation
Posted: June 19, 2016 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Congress, Constitution, Historical Perspective, Politics, United States Constitution Leave a commentThe title of this piece is the same as the motto that for years can be found on the license plates of vehicles registered in Washington D.C. Most tourists, when they recognize it, are startled to see it and often ask about it, thus the reason for it being there in the first place. The answer, however, while simple in response — “the District has no voting representatives in the Congress” — is far less simple in the context of the current political world.
To many D.C. residents, last Tuesday’s Democrat presidential primary in the District was symbolic of their plight in the modern United States. While afforded the opportunity to vote for one of the nominees (Hillary Clinton won, while Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) won the Republican primary held in March), their votes were the last in the nation and of no significance since the nomination had already been decided.
It may be useful to put things in a quick historical context. As we all learned in elementary school, Washington became the new capital city for the newly created United States. Created by Congress through passage of the Residence Act in July 1790, the city’s location was the result of a compromise hammered out between Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) already provided for a federal district that was not a part of any state and that would be governed by the Congress. Maryland and Virginia each donated land along the Potomac River that created a square-shaped jurisdiction and included the existing cities of Georgetown on the Maryland side, and Alexandria on the Virginia side. In 1846 Congress returned Virginia’s donated land to the state (a complicated story in itself but it has to do with slaves as well as the city of Alexandria, and the fact that all federal buildings were constructed on the Maryland side) creating the current District’s size and shape.
For most of their history, D.C. residents had no say over how their city was governed. The first significant change came in the early 1960’s with the ratification of the Twenty-third Amendment to the Constitution which gave the District three electoral college votes for president. The votes are allocated according to population, but regardless, cannot exceed the number of votes allotted to the least populous state.
In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that allowed for the citizens of the city to elect a mayor and 13 Council members. The first mayor was elected in 1975.
What is the significance of this brief history lesson? Well, because of these cases and others, some legal scholars argue that, starting with the return of Virginia’s portion of the District, the Congress undid many elements of the original Constitution, thus setting a precedent that the District should be allowed home rule.
Here’s the real rub. The District’s citizens resent that Congress over rides many of the laws that they pass within the Council or via referendum among the citizens. Often, they are undone by conservative members of Congress that, according to many of the District’s citizens, use D.C. as a personal lab to push conservative causes that they cannot get done in their home state or in the Congress. Additionally, when Congress is gridlocked, the District suffers because their budget, just like the Defense Department or the State Department is held hostage during the negotiations, making it difficult to run the city because even though they have the money (their own money, they argue) unless Congress authorizes them to spend it, they are not able to do so.
This is relevant today, as another major battle is brewing between the District’s government and Congress. While D.C. supposedly has home rule, they must have their budget approved by Congress . This year the city government says that while they will submit it to Congress for review, they will not wait for approval and will spend the $13 billion dollars as they see fit. That budget breaks down to $4 billion in federal taxes and $7 billion in local property, sales, and other taxes. (In the past, Congress would block spending on items or issues of which they did not approve. They also control all of the funds, including those through local taxes.) It is, as the Washington Post observed, essentially a Declaration of Independence by the city. The Congress is not amused. It may be a fight that D.C. cannot win, with threats of contempt of Congress and possible jail time for the mayor and Council. Such activity directly in spite of Congress is deemed un-Constitutional. In a vote in late May, the House voted to nullify the District’s voter approved measure to give themselves autonomy over their own city’s spending.
The real issue of course is whether or not Washington D.C. should become the fifty-first state.
Primarily, the desire of an increasing number of the city’s citizens is for autonomy in creating budgets and taking legislative actions, and gaining voting representation in Congress, just like the “other” states — 67% of voters in D.C. want statehood according to a poll last fall. (Currently the District has one representative or “delegate” in the House but that person cannot vote on legislation.)
The behind the scenes issue is that Washington D.C. voters are primarily Democrats and that giving the District two Senators and a member of Congress would add to the numbers of Democrats in those two legislative bodies.
As argued by the proponents of statehood, and delineated in the Post, Washington D.C. is not an economically backward city dependent on the federal government for its income. For example:
- The D.C. economy is bigger per capita than 16 states.
- The D.C. budget is less reliant on federal funds than are those of 30 states.
- D.C is actually a “donor state” along with states such as New York, Massachusetts, and California that pay more in federal taxes each year than the receive in services from the federal government.
- D.C. has a larger population than Vermont and Wyoming.
- Large portions of the city pay no local taxes as they are federally owned (Capital, White House, monuments, etc.) or are owned by tax-exempt entities.
- D.C. has its own National Guard unit and its citizens serve in the Armed Forces of the United States without a say in how such forces are used.
- Most federal workers live in Maryland or Virginia, paying no taxes in D.C., while the city has to bear the expenses of providing services (police, fire, sewer, etc.) to those workers.
The list goes on and on. Washington D.C. has its share of arguments as to why it should become the fifty-first state. And yet, there is that pesky little document called the Constitution.
Personally, I do not think that Washington D.C. should become a state. However, clearly a compromise of some sort that gives the citizens of D.C. some say in their own, and their nation’s affairs should be reachable. Past efforts at compromise have failed, mainly for political reasons that have little to do with city politics or policies and more to do with wielding power in the Congress.
Other proposals include giving the land back to Maryland and thus D.C. would have two Senators (Maryland’s) and gain representation in the House based on population. Unfortunately, Maryland does not want to regain the city and the District does not want to join Maryland.
My thought is that D.C. is on the right track. Allow the city to manage its own fiscal and legislative affairs, just like any other governmental entity in our country. Make the “delegate” a voting member of the House and add (or subtract) Representatives based on population and the current census used to draw up representation in the House. No representation in the Senate.
The original creation of Washington D.C. was a compromise. It seems that a reasonable compromise is attainable in the twenty-first century so that all of our nations’ citizens have some form of representation in designating how their tax dollars will work.
Tom
Into The Fray 
Recent Comments