Israel-Palestine, U.S. Congress are zero-sum games

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Israel-Palestine-Gaza conflict and House Republican politics might seem to have nothing in common.  But they do.

Both yield no hope of compromise.  It’s impossible when parties believe they are fighting over a limited resource.  That’s called a “zero-sum game.” When one side wins, the other side must lose.  It’s winner-take-all.

In Israel-Palestine, two groups insist that the conflict there is a zero-sum game.

Extreme right-wing parties in Israel’s current governing coalition want to absorb Palestine into a single country under Israeli rule.  Arabs would be killed, expelled or required to live as second-class citizens.  Israeli Jews, they believe, have an ancient right to a land that was once theirs and that provides them shelter in a hostile world, at its worst during the Holocaust.

On the other side is Hamas, a terrorist group that sees Israel as occupying lands that had been under Arab control for centuries.  Its solution is to kill Jews or terrorize them so they leave. Because it is not bound by international norms, it feels free to rampage at will.

The limited resource in this case is territory. Each side maintains that it has a legitimate claim to all of it.  Some Palestinians and Israelis favor a two-state solution reached through compromise, allowing each side to prosper.  The world community presses for this solution, imposing the concept on Israel and the Palestinians, but without a real effort to make it happen.

Presumably, Hamas saw no chance of its anti-Israel goal being reached and worried that the U.S., some Arab countries and Israel would make a peace deal over the heads of the Palestinians.   So it attacked and refocused the world’s attention.  So far, the only result is a war with innocent victims on both sides.

In Washington, the limited resource is political power.  The slim GOP House majority tries to deny to a Democratic president and Senate the power to appropriate funds or make laws as might be expected to be done by the majority party.  If the Republican goal is to shrink government and keep taxes low, they wield power.

While compromise might advance the national interest, it would deny the House GOP the full force of its power.  While the controversial issues run the full range of the non-military activities of the federal government, they matter less to the GOP than its legislative veto.

This quest for minority control reaches its extreme when GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama blocks all senior military appointments unless he gets his way on a single issue.  Even some of his fellow Republicans believe he has gone too far.  His power, not foreseen by the Constitution, is more important than the nation’s Armed Forces.

In short, the national interest, which could emerge from a compromise, cannot be pursued because of a quest for power.

As bad as both of these conflicts over limited resources – territory or power – may be, they cause something even worse.  Success seems to depend on reducing the opposition to being seen as inherently inferior or evil.

If you agree with Israeli policy, then you may choose to see Palestinians as followers of a different creed that is inferior to yours.  If you see the Palestinians as Israeli victims, then you may hold all Jews responsible for Israel’s policy.  From these attitudes comes Islamophobia and new waves of Anti-Semitism.

If you agree with extreme GOP views, then you may see Democrats as socialists or, even worse, as traitors.  If you are a left-wing Democrat, you may see the Republican right as racist.  Both views are misguided, but make compromise impossible.

In a broader sense, these views, repeated with great passion, threaten society itself.  They can end up holding every member of a group responsible for the views and actions of some members of that group – collective guilt.

Consistent and creative advocates of compromise are missing.  Nobody takes short-term political risks to promote long-term solutions.  That requires advancing proposed solutions, even if they may not ultimately succeed.  They can influence, if not change, the focus of controversy.

The U.S. and Europe could lay out a possible two-state formula for Israel-Palestine, offering more benefit for each side than endless conflict.  Neither side would endorse it, but it could bring about real negotiations. Otherwise, bloodshed will continue, and neither side will prevail.

President Biden could propose to Congress a comprehensive package of proposals on government funding and key policies.  It would not be adopted as proposed, but Biden could be the leader who set the table for negotiations.  Otherwise, government may become paralyzed.

In either case, a compromise could produce results or failure would allow public opinion to assign responsibility. 

Now, two sides ensure that the best for one side is the enemy of the good for both. That’s wrong, because these need not be zero-sum games.

Trump, China’s Xi share policy goals

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump and Xi Jinping have the same political goal.

For Trump, it’s embodied in his slogan, “Make America Great Again.” Xi’s motto might be, “Make Communism Great Again.” Both want to return to their version of the good old days.

Before the Great Depression that began in 1929, the federal government played a limited role in the country’s economic life and had little to do with social policy. The economy favored corporations, the wealthy and the rising middle class. Social programs were left mainly to private, not governmental, action.

The economic bubble burst with the Depression. Economic growth, much of its based on speculation, could no longer support big business and wild investing. In turn, much of the middle class lost jobs and was driven toward poverty.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, beginning in 1933, gave government a greater role in the economy and social policy. It pumped funds into the economy, creating jobs, and established Social Security and other support programs to provide stability and prevent a similar collapse. His plan included stronger regulation of banking and the private sector.

A tradition of limited government action was replaced by policies giving public agencies key roles in managing the economy, which remained powered by private enterprise. During the massive economic build-up for World War II, the government chose to hire corporate America to produce armaments.

Both major parties had supported the pre-Depression system. With Roosevelt, the Democrats offered the New Deal, a major departure. The GOP remained reluctant to accept a changed role for government, which gained some power to control private sector action.

The benefits of Roosevelt’s approach became embedded in the American economy. For example, few would now advocate ending a national retirement program. But Republicans, led by Trump, would privatize programs and reduce regulation as much as possible.

Such moves would presumably make America great “again.” Trump demonizes those supporting current policies. He sees them as being more dangerous than the dictators he favors. His allies in the House seek to use their slim majority to begin reverting to the past. They try to sell their approach by promising tax cuts mostly for the wealthy.

Former president Bill Clinton once said that Trump proposed to “give you an economy you had 50 years ago, and ... move you back up on the social totem pole and other people down."

In short, making America great “again” is based on the belief that the country was greater before the New Deal and much of modern government should be unraveled.

Xi also looks back to the days when the Chinese Communist Party had the people engage in agriculture and manufacturing that were both managed by the government. Private economic activity would only be marginal. The Party would rule as a dictator on behalf of the people.

Mao Zedong had led the Communist Party to power in China. Deeply devoted to the Communist ideal, he opposed educated people who began to develop ways of thinking that departed from the simplicity of traditional Communism. But his 1958 “Great Leap Forward” was a failure leading to massive famine.

By 1966, he launched the Cultural Revolution, a disastrous back-to-the earth policy. After his death in 1976, the country began to abandon it and to allow the growth of private enterprise.

Deng Xiaoping, Mao’s successor, sought foreign investment and economic development. Millions left the agricultural life that Mao had favored for cities where a middle class began to emerge. Prosperity and greater individual freedom grew under a reformed Community Party.

Xi rejects Deng and pursues a return to many of the values associated with the traditional Party of Mao. He argues that his policy shows the inherent advantages of theoretical Communism over democracy.

He believes that political turbulence in the U.S. and Europe reveals the weakness of Western democracies as they emerged after World War II. He repeats the slogan, “the East rises, the West falls.”

Here is where Xi and Trump are on common ground. They both see the development of liberal democracy as opposing the natural economic system – Trumps’ unfettered individual freedom and Xi’s dictatorship of the workers through the Chinese Communist Party. Both favor authoritarian government, while claiming their approaches are in the best interest of the people.

Both ignore reality. The Great Depression, an economic catastrophe, and the Cultural Revolution, a disastrous failure, were replaced by reforms yielding stability, growth and a rising middle class. Yet the success of these reforms may have dulled popular sensitivity to their ongoing value.

Efforts by leaders to turn the clock back will ultimately fail. People are likely to recognize that the benefits of a combination of private economic initiative and government protection of the common interest are hardwired into their lives. Trump and Xi can make much trouble, but they cannot succeed.

Biden versus Trump might not happen

 

Gordon L. Weil

Get ready for snow.

Before long, the 2024 election campaign will be covered in a thick blanket of speculation.  It will be about as difficult to see through as the blizzard of punditry that blows it in.  Of course, political speculation is likely no better than most 10-day forecasts of the actual weather.  Before I take cover, here are my thoughts about the presidential race.

The big news is that polls show that Trump, the former president, today defeats Biden, the president who beat him, in swing states.   A former president who loses and then wins a second term is unusual.  Only Grover Cleveland did it, back in the 1880s.

The polls have settled nothing.  At least four scenarios are possible for the presidential election, excluding any others in which a third party would be a factor.

The first is the currently anticipated Biden-Trump contest.  This one could produce as a winner the person disliked less than the other.

On the issues, Biden has some strong points like abortion and democracy, but some weaknesses like immigration and inflation.  Both matter less than his age.  He is too old to be president for another five years.  The signs of his aging are evident, though they are ignored by his circle and advocates, impressed with his policies.

Biden suffers from his lack of an essential element of leadership.  Though he reaches out to many constituencies, he does not inspire voters.  Voters need charismatic leaders, and Biden is too laid back or tired.

Trump is in serious legal trouble, and likely to be convicted of more than one criminal violation. His loyal cult sticks with him, but would voters elect a convicted criminal?  Will traditional Republicans surrender their party to Trumpers who place their quest for power above the national interest?

Besides, what are Trump’s current policies beyond an inflated opinion of himself?  In recent statements, he seems to have a declining understanding of both domestic and international issues.

The Biden-Trump contest would boil down to a choice between the lesser of two evils, as it may have been in 2020.

One alternative would be Biden versus another Republican like Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, or Ron Desantis, the Florida governor.  They benefit from surviving in the GOP field.  Early primaries may make one of them a viable alternative to Trump.  If the court cases undermine him, a possible replacement would be ready.

That likely creates a major problem for Biden.  Running against, say, Haley could change the lesser-of-two-evils calculation.  If Biden faces the potential problem of running against a younger, cogent candidate, he might now have to either reconsider running or make a bold move to shake up the contest.

Though highly risky politically, that move would be throwing open to the Democratic Convention the choice of the vice presidential candidate.  In effect, the winner would be the face of the Democrats against the non-Trump GOP candidate.  The party, not Biden alone, would pick his potential successor.  Biden would remain on the ticket, but there would be a lively Democratic nomination process.

Yet another possible scenario would be Trump versus another Democrat.  That plot could develop if Trump overcomes his legal handicaps and Biden does not overcome the advancing effects of age and leaves the race.

In this case, the Democrats would probably not simply pass the first spot to Vice President Harris unless the need arose only after the Convention.  The Democrats could select Harris or another candidate who was younger and more in tune with the majority of voters than Trump.

The fourth alternative case might be the most appealing.  It would pit a Democrat, not Biden, against a Republican, not Trump.  Each party would go through an open and competitive process to select its nominee. 

The campaign could be mostly about the future and less about past presidencies.  In a completely divided country, with many voters who claim to be moderates but really aren’t, the electorate could be given a choice between two fresh approaches to governing in an age of environmental crisis and economic change.

Maybe the candidates would be forced to debate their policies on immigration, law and the courts, women’s equality and the future of Social Security and Medicare.  While ideology is a driving force for some voters, so-called moderates, the key swing voters, could decide who is more likely to offer practical solutions free from the controversial policies of a previous president.

Admittedly, the alternative cases may be unrealistic simply because of the momentum generated by two presidents and media expectations.  Yet merely accepting a race between two candidates who should have retired could be costly for the country.

These four cases show that today’s self-confident speculating by political analysts might amount to little more than a snow job.  Mine, too.

Classic test of political power of money

 

Gordon L. Weil

In olden times, alchemists tried to turn lead into gold.  They failed.

In 1976, the U.S. decided to convert gold into political power.  It worked.

That year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that free spending and free speech are the same.  Because the Constitution allows no limits on political speech, the Court said it allows no limits on political spending.

The decision by the unelected justices overruled the massive majority votes in the elected Congress.  Campaign spending took off.  The justices had transformed American politics.

Money now fuels politics. Big money promises to produce big results, and the proof is in the ever-increasing size of campaign spending.   Chances of election victory are tied directly to the amount in campaign coffers.

The Republican National Committee uses only two standards in deciding which presidential contenders are viable: their poll rating and their fundraising ability. Last month, former Vice President Mike Pence dropped out of the GOP race, unable to meet the campaign contribution standard.

Campaigns have become battles for the buck.  Presidential candidates compete for contributions and reject the paltry federal funding meant to level the field.  Congressional incumbents amass dollars early, trying to discourage challengers before they even begin campaigns.  In referendums – campaigns without candidates, the participants focus on outspending one another in getting their message before voters. 

Maine voters are now experiencing a classic case of the power of money in politics.  It is Question 3 on replacing two existing for-profit electric utilities – Central Maine Power and Versant Power – with a nonprofit company – Pine Tree Power.

In public power elections, owners of existing companies have the means to finance campaigns aimed at protecting their investment.  Public power proponents have no profit motive and thus may have much less ability to raise campaign funds.

This is the third public power referendum with which I have some close familiarity.  The others occurred in Maine and in Miami, Florida.  In all three cases, spending by investor-owners swamped advocates of nonprofit, public ownership of a utility monopoly.

In the earlier situations, the incumbent utilities inundated television and print media, while the supporters of change struggled to be seen.  The Miami nonprofit was proposed by the municipal government, prevented by law from spending any public funds to campaign.  It suffered a lopsided loss.

A similar pattern now exists in Maine, where the campaign funds of the existing utilities are more than ten times greater than the resources of the nonprofit’s proponents.  The operating utilities can make their case on television, while the challengers cannot begin to compete in paid campaigning. The question will be settled this coming Election Day.

The Supreme Court has also overturned a congressional majority and declared that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals and may spend freely in political campaigns.  That decision has increased the flood of political money. 

Independent corporate committees can spend without limit in political campaigns, supposedly because they are outside the control of the political parties or formal participants. To believe that such independence exists requires an act of willful ignorance.

States’ campaign spending rules may differ somewhat from the federal system. But traditional practices and the threat of Supreme Court action to extend its rulings to the states has caused increased conformity with the federal system.

The Court also ruled that each American vote should have equal weight.  But the principle of one person-one vote is a myth when unlimited corporate campaign money has allowed some participants in the political process more power than others.  The ability of a few to influence masses of voters can count more than the assurance that all votes count the same.

The process by which the people make the ultimate political decisions has been both strengthened and weakened over time.  It took constitutional amendments to allow Blacks and women to vote.   But deciding that money is a form of speech, which led to political inequality and the overwhelming power of well-funded corporations, took only a Court order.

The major political money cases came when the Supreme Court overruled Congress.  The Court, using the judicial review authority it gave itself, rejected congressional decisions intended to maintain a level political playing field.

Congress should modify judicial review by the Supreme Court and recover its authority over voting.  Basic American law should not be made by the Court.

In the Question 3 contest, like it or not, Maine voters experience the effect of unchecked campaign spending.  Their only possible action, limited to one aspect of this issue, arises on Question 2, aimed at preventing referendum campaign outlays by foreign governments or their agents.

Citizens are reaching the point where they should decide not only on candidates and campaigns, but if they will continue to accept the domination of American elections by the political power of money.