Trump’s unchecked power ending ‘the normal balance’

 

Gordon L. Weil

The president of the United States announced that, facing a “national emergency,” he needed “broad Executive power,” departing from “the normal balance between the executive and legislative authority.”

“The people of the United States … have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action,” he said, asserting that they had picked him for task.

These words reflect the thinking of Donald Trump, though not his speaking style.  For good reason. These are the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first inaugural address in 1933. 

Trump may have an influence on national and world events that we have not seen exercised by any one person since FDR.

Though their policies would be enormously different, both changed the nation and the world, overthrowing conventional wisdom and practice.  And both acted boldly and swiftly.

In three elections, Trump has never won a majority of the popular vote, while FDR gained big popular majorities in four elections.  FDR drew power from his big victories and good, if sometimes fractured, support from a Democratic Congress.  Trump draws his power from an intensely loyal Republican Congress and a claimed strong electoral mandate.

His power stems from his extraordinary public outreach and from a Supreme Court decision recognizing almost unlimited presidential powers.  Using the Court’s broad grant of powers, Trump has reshaped the American political system and international affairs.  Trump continually pushes to see if any limits remain on his power.

“To prove this, let facts be submitted.”

He has reduced the size of government, and has virtually eliminated entire agencies. Programs, like foreign aid and consumer credit protection, are almost gone, contrary to the law and without congressional approval.  In effect, he has established the dominant role of the president over the Congress.

He is ending independent regulation, in existence since the 19th Century, by revoking rules and firing regulators.  Courts have approved his departure from longstanding precedents and practices.

He has ignored constitutional due process protections applying to non-citizens so that a daily target of 3,000 expulsions of illegal foreign residents could become possible.  His agencies have uprooted peaceful and productive people, going well beyond his promise to deport criminals first. 

He has also imposed his values and beliefs without regard for traditions and the views of others.  His opposition to recognizing racism and to diversity in hiring and public speech, even in the private sector and universities, and his watering down of Civil War history has opened old wounds.

He has used his office for personal gain from his business interests to a greater extent than any other president.  In the process, he has modified the accepted standards controlling political corruption.

He uses tariffs as a readily available tool to force others to reduce their exports, promoting increased U.S. production.  Though excessive tariffs punish both the exporter and the importer, Trump believes the U.S. trade deficit results from other countries taking unfair advantage. 

He claims to raise tariffs in response to a national emergency, but his frequent and impulsive adjustments show they are a bargaining tool rather than a way to meet an existing crisis.  He has reshaped world trade, forcing other countries to replace U.S. ties with new relationships and to buttress their own self-sufficiency.

He has forced friendly countries to reduce their defense reliance on the U.S., sometimes demeaning them and their leaders.  At his urging, they increase both their military budgets and their independence from the U.S., eroding American influence.  The split between the U.S. and Europe in dealing with Russia’s war on Ukraine is a sign of future divergence.

He is also changing the role of the military.  Despite laws and traditions to the contrary, it has begun to take on law enforcement responsibilities.  This allows him to bypass state authority.

He has stunningly transformed the American system of government by exploiting popular sentiment that can be led to abandon policies and values of FDR’s New Deal and post-World War II liberalism.  In serving his ambition, his authoritarianism eats away at democracy.

He has ignored constitutional norms so that he may be creating a new originalism from which the country must restart its political evolution.  This effort must yet be tested by courts, subjected to the political process and influenced by other nations.

This list of his unchecked actions directly parallels the list of “usurpations” composing the indictment of the British king in the Declaration of Independence, whose 249th anniversary the nation is about to observe.

The Declaration was the voice of strong and united opposition to unlimited executive rule.  The new Americans took great risks, personal and political, to resist.  They compromised their differences to reach unity on a common goal.

Today, simply proclaiming “No Kings” is not enough.  On the Fourth of July, the Founders offered a bold and coherent alternative.  That’s what is missing now.

Will U.S. bombing of Iran pay off?

 

Gordon L. Weil

When the B-2 bombers took off from Missouri on their way to bomb nuclear sites in Iran, that was not the beginning of the direct conflict between the two countries.

It began in August 1953 and continues.  President Trump may have seen the bombing only as an attempt to end Iran’s nuclear weapons development, but it was part of an historic confrontation. 

In 1953, the CIA led an effort that toppled the Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh.  He had nationalized the oil industry, stripping British and American interests of their control, and was also seen as a threat to the stability imposed upon the Middle East following World War II.  

The Shah, the country’s nominal ruler, had American backing to take control of the government in Tehran.  But the coup brought deep Iranian resentment of the U.S., which falsely denied the CIA’s role.  Iranian militants opposed the Shah who had appropriated some of the nation’s wealth for his own use.

Eventually, the Shah was forced into exile and fell ill.  The Iranian opposition sought his return to face judgment, but he was granted access to health care in the U.S.  Infuriated, in 1979 militants turned a street demonstration into the occupation of the U.S. Embassy.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile, became Supreme Leader of Iran’s refashioned Islamic State, and approved the occupation.  The new regime labelled the U.S. as the “Great Satan.”  Even after Iran freed the embassy hostages, its conflict with the U.S. intensified.

Iran detested American backing of Israel.  It saw Israel as gaining power in the Middle East, at the expense of fellow Muslims and undercutting its own plans for power in the region.  Israel saw Iran as its major regional threat.  Iran considered the U.S. and Israel as a common enemy.

Iran extended its war against Israel by arming and supporting hostile forces all around it: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthi in Yemen.  Its growing power moved it toward regional domination.

Iran’s economic strength comes from its oil exports.  It claimed that it would develop nuclear power to free up more oil for export.  As a non-weapons state, it subscribed to the Nonproliferation Treaty and accepted inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

But Iran enriched uranium to levels that could be used in nuclear weapons to threaten Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East.  Under pressure, it agreed with leading world powers to limit its enrichment for a fixed period but could continue to develop missiles capable of delivering atomic devices.

Trump condemned that accord and in 2018 withdrew the U.S. from it.  Iran stepped up enrichment, getting close to weapons grade.  IAEA inspections were hampered and, at last, it formally voted that Iran was not obeying its treaty obligations.

Soon after Russia failed to win rapid victory over Ukraine in 2023, Iran supplied it with drones and even technical help on the ground.  The Russian attack sought to regain control over Ukraine to prevent it from joining with the West, which aligned with Iran’s anti-American objectives.

Trying to reduce nuclear threats, Trump tried to coax North Korea, also long hostile to the U.S., to give up its nuclear weapons, but failed to charm Kim Jong-Un..  Like Iran, North Korea drew closer to Russia and assists it in the Ukraine War. 

European nations and Canada joined in Trump’s determination not to allow the emergence of Iran as another nuclear state.

Some foreign leaders preferred more negotiations, despite a dismal record, instead of the bombing and its unknowable consequences.  But if unproductive talks went on, the closer Iran might come to being a nuclear power.  And Iran had not shown itself to be negotiating either realistically or in good faith.  So, Trump chose to act.

Given Iran’s ongoing hostility to the U.S, its enmity toward Israel, its growing relationship with Russia and its deceit about its intentions, Trump’s move to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites is understandable, though opposed by many Americans who are wary of war.  Arguing about the effectiveness of the bombing is pointless; the result will become apparent enough. 

What comes next?  Will Iran finally recognize that it must abandon any possibility of having nuclear weapons, perhaps only possible after a regime change, or will it continue to threaten Middle East stability.  If Iran persists in denying that its territory and nuclear development are vulnerable, Trump faces a choice.  

Negotiations might lead to a new agreement like the one he rejected, with enrichment limited indefinitely and limits placed on missiles.  In return, Iran would get eased economic sanctions and new foreign investment.

Without a negotiated deal, the alternative would be an unpopular, prolonged American military confrontation with Iran, perhaps even in a wider conflict.

 

 

 

Does Trump act legally?

Gordon L. Weil

There’s a war going on.

This one’s not Ukraine or the Middle East.  It’s the quiet war being fought in the courts that could have a direct effect on many, if not all, Americans.  It’s major decision time for the Supreme Court, and it could set limits on the Trump regime or approve how it governs.

By June 19, at least 285 federal cases had been brought against the Trump administration by people and institutions claiming to have been harmed by government actions they argue violate the Constitution and laws.  President Trump’s executive orders since his inauguration (at least 163) have set a record, but so have challenges to them.

The federal courts are entangled in resolving complaints that the president has gone too far.  Has he violated the Constitution?

Here’s how the system works as Trump cases move up to the Court. 

A legal action is begun in one of the 94 federal district courts.  Because the court must issue a reasoned judgment in each case, it may suspend the Trump move by issuing an injunction until the judge can reach a conclusion.  The Justice Department may not wait and instead go to one of 13 courts of appeal to get that suspension lifted.  Or it may go directly to the Supreme Court.

If an injunction is lifted, the plaintiff, possibly harmed by the Trump-Musk actions, may be left jobless or slated for expulsion from the country.  Entire agencies may be functionally abolished.  But decisions may take months and meanwhile, the Trump policy would remain in effect. 

District courts judges may make careful decisions on the legality of Trump’s actions after early hearings and prompt rulings.  If they decide against the president, he then requests that their injunctions should be suspended while appeals are considered.

When a court lifts a court suspension on Trump or grants him one, it will usually rely on a finding that Trump is likely to win when the case is decided.  Thus, a case may be finally decided procedurally by allowing it to go into effect even if it has not reached a formal decision that itself could be appealed and take more time.

The Supreme Court often uses this so-called procedural “shadow docket.”   In the current term beginning last October, it has issued 102 such decisions, not all on Trump, but only 57 formal opinions. 

By the time a final decision is made, the plaintiff may have been expelled from the country or lost their job.  University-based scientific research might have been halted.   An innocent person may have been held in harsh detention.  Yet no court has acted against any government official who violated a direct court order protecting a person’s due process right.

The Supreme Court is now in the final days of its current term.   As usual, it has left some of its most important decisions until the end, though this dramatic delay may be artificial.  Here are some key points to watch for.

Chief Justice Roberts likes to emphasize that the Court stays out of politics. He may find ways to agree with Trump, while avoiding making major decisions.  He threads his way along procedural paths that make decisions look both narrow and legally unquestionable. The result can confirm the Trump policy without saying so.

The Court may appear to make decisions giving satisfaction to both sides.  This may happen in the landmark decision expected on birthright citizenship.  Trump claims that, despite a clear statement in the Constitution, his administration can use a provision designed to exempt the children of foreign diplomats to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal entrants.

It would be surprising if the Court agreed with Trump.  But it has signaled that it is focusing on the ability of a single district court to make a ruling of a nationwide effect, as happened in this case.  This has frequently happened to Trump orders.  The Court could give some comfort to Trump by somehow pulling back on the district courts’ powers.

A recent appeals court decision, by a panel with a majority of his appointees, rejected his claim that his powers are so absolute that the court should not even hear a case.  Even though it approved his actions, it said that the president must obey the laws enacted by Congress.   

The Court might narrow the scope of its broad grant of presidential powers, given in Trump v. U.S. last July.  Undoubtedly, Trump uses that decision as his basis for ignoring the Constitution and laws when issuing his executive orders.  Or the Court could boost his powers, by reinforcing its earlier decisions that he can fire members of independent regulatory bodies. 

In the next ten days, the Supreme Court could bring the war in the courts to a new level.

  

"Big, bearuful bill' in trouble

Gordon L. Weil

It’s all about the Laffer Curve.

President Trump’s “One, big, beautiful bill” to cut taxes and spending has run right into it.

The Laffer Curve, an idea promoted by economist Arthur Laffer, has been around since Ronald Reagan was president.

It’s about the relationship between the level of taxes and economic growth.  If taxes are too low, the government puts too little money into the economy to promote growth.  If taxes are too high, the government takes too much money out of the economy, slowing growth. 

There’s a sweet spot when the tax rate is just right.  At that point, taxes allow government to play its proper role in the economy and individuals and companies the right amount of money to keep the economy growing.  Nobody knows where that sweet spot is; it’s a matter of opinion. 

The BBB would lower taxes and could be enacted with only loyal Trump GOP votes. The euphoria of the federal government under a single party and the resulting belief that it could easily enact the president’s proposal are now meeting the realism of American politics. 

The iron law seems to be that the people – even conservative Republicans – expect much from government but do not want to pay enough taxes to get it.  They reasonably add some debt to the mix, though they must avoid letting debt service feed on itself, always growing greater.

Here’s what the BBB would do.

First, it would extend major tax cuts for individuals that are set to expire and create new tax breaks, ranging from no tax on tips to lower rates for the wealthiest taxpayers.  These add up to huge tax breaks that Trump promised in his campaign.

Second, it would cut spending to pay for some of the tax reductions.  To even begin to raise enough money, it would require slashing Medicaid, green energy support and much else.

Third, it would inevitably increase the national debt to pay for the tax cut costs not covered by spending cuts. For that purpose, the debt ceiling, which is little more than a symbolic political gimmick, would have to be raised.

This combination is causing big trouble for Congress and may result in Trump’s BBB falling well short of his promises.

The individual tax cuts were set to expire after Trump’s second term, assuming he had been re-elected in 2020.  Because he skipped a term, they expire during his presidency.  He would make them permanent, but that is costly.  Added tax cuts, promised in the campaign, would massively increase the national debt.

The neutral Congressional Budget Office says the BBB could increase the national debt by $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years.

Traditional GOP conservatives reject increasing the national debt.  Even for their president, they cannot accept trillions more of new debt.  Some creative bookkeeping to disguise debt is supposed to satisfy them, but it is not working.

Debt service is now greater than either national defense spending or Medicaid, and conservatives are looking for debt reduction not a further increase. 

As for spending, the budget cannot be cut the way Trump and Elon Musk would like.  The budget deficit is not simply a matter of wild Democratic spending.  Instead, it results from members of Congress responding to the demands, needs and desires of the voters.

Constituencies composed of millions of voters favor Medicaid for the poor, health research, renewable energy development, farm payments and a myriad of other government programs. Members of Congress cater to their constituents to stay in office. They support most federal appropriations and protect each other’s priorities.

The worst is yet to come. Social Security will soon stop paying for itself.  Voters are likely to oppose massive cuts to it.  Congress will have to find funding.

Right now, Trump doesn’t have the votes for BBB.

While spending cannot be cut as Trump wants, there’s room for some reductions. Nothing should be automatic.  Each agency should have to justify regularly all its spending subject to line-item review, not a Musk meataxe. The president and GOP Congress can set their priorities, like killing foreign aid, but cannot achieve them all.

The Laffer Curve stands in the way of a tax increase.  Republicans see the U.S. as being past the sweet spot, suggesting that a tax cut would boost the economy, increase government revenues, and pay for itself.  There’s no historical evidence supporting such optimistic expectations.  The unforeseen economic effect of the Covid pandemic proves that.

The answer to finding a sound federal budget without endless debt increases must be a combination of setting spending priorities and tax increases.  Voters must accept the need to pay for the government services they want. 

It’s time to stop hiding behind the self-serving appeal of the Laffer Curve and recognize that tax increases on upper income people must come. 

How a country, leader impresses Trump

 

Gordon L. Weil

You know it when you see it. 

Donald Trump does.   He sees it in British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.  He does not see it in Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy or former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  When he sees it, his quick take on a leader influences his policy toward that person’s nation.

It’s called gravitas.  That’s a term from ancient Rome.  If a person has it, they are thought to be serious, substantial and dignified.  Their gravitas gains them respect and enhances their ability to lead.  That respect benefits their countries and the aura of leadership gives them the ability to govern effectively.  

Americans seem to place little value on it, preferring to see a president as a pal.  Look at Gerry (Gerald Ford), Jimmy (James Carter), Bill (William Clinton), Al (Albert Gore), and Joe (Joseph Biden). Trump might aspire to gravitas. He may appear as a plain-speaking guy, but he enjoys a big military parade with its multiple salutes.

Carney recently made it clear that a leader with gravitas is essential if a nation wants to be taken seriously by the U.S., China or Russia. “If you are not at the table,” he said, “you’re on the menu.”  See Zelenskyy at the White House.

The effect can be found in the serious trade negotiations between the U.S. and China, the U.K. and Canada, while the rest of the world is in the waiting room.  Its absence can be seen in the way Trump treats Ukraine.

Carney has given Canada a new image, one immune from Trump’s ridiculous and offensive claim that it should be the 51st American state.  With his respected standing, extensive international experience and proximity to the U.S., he has been able to express clearly how Canada and others see the U.S. and to act on his conclusions.

He laid it out recently.  Here is his view, which is a clear statement reflecting the sentiment of leaders of other countries as well.

The U.S. played a “predominant role” in the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  It exercised a “gravitational pull” on Canada.  “Today, that predominance is a thing of the past.”

“Now, the United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony, charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contribution to our collective security,” he stated. 

A key word for Carney is “reliable.”  You could always count on America, especially as the protector of international rules-based order.  That has changed. Canada now finds itself in an “age of disorder” and feels threatened by “a new imperialism.”

Like a substantial investor, Canada will seek to diversify.  This does not mean abandoning its close relationship with the U.S., which is an asset for both countries.  But by diversifying, Canada can reduce the risk that Washington will set Canadian national policy.  The same formula is true for Britain, France and Germany.

“We’re far too reliant on the United States,” Carney said. “We can no longer send three-quarters of our defense capital spending to America.”  His country is now seeking to form a new relationship with Rearm Europe, a multinational effort to expand non-American military production.

He asserts that “the world’s trade routes, allegiances, energy systems and even intelligence itself are being rewired.”  Canada will seek “a new international set of partnerships” and “deeper alliances with stable democracies.”   The clear implication is that he questions whether the U.S. is a “stable” democracy.

Carney recognizes that his new policy, involving stepped up defense spending, will impose a cost on the country.  He has already shown himself to be more aware of the economic interests of Canadian provinces to promote accelerated growth and a stronger economy beyond what Trudeau’s utopian agenda would have permitted.

His view is increasingly the common view of countries from Estonia to Australia.  Trump’s vision of nations orbiting the U.S., not so much for American domination as for its enrichment, is leading other countries to reassess their relationship with the U.S. and to form “a new international set of partnerships.”

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in today’s crisis points in Europe and the Middle East.  American interests, influenced by its relationships with Russia and Israel, do not align with those of Canada or Europe, which may see themselves as targets.  Trump’s easy claims to Canada or Greenland reveal the gap with countries that have been threatened or invaded.

“When we stand up for territorial integrity, whether it is in Ukraine or West Bank and Gaza, we are standing up for the territorial integrity of the Canadian Arctic,” he said.

Perhaps one positive result of the Trump’s pressure on trade and territory is that Canada and Europe are being forced to accept their own responsibility for a stable and reliable world order.

Trump -- racist or opportunist?

Gordon L. Weil

Terry Moran, an ABC correspondent, recently wrote on his social media site that Stephen Miller, a Trump aide, is a “world class hater.”   What’s worse, he made a similar comment about President Trump.  That got him fired by ABC, which is going to great lengths to placate Trump.  Also, reporters should not express their personal views of people they cover.

Are Trump and his administration racist, sexist, or antisemitic, degrading some groups to favor the preferred club of white men?  In one form or another, this charge has been made against Trump ever since he began running in 2015.

One easy explanation is that Trump himself is not racist, but that he sends signals to biased voters that he sympathizes with them to gain their political support.  His attitude may encourage more open prejudice against Blacks, women, Jews and others.   But Trump usually avoids saying the wrong thing.

With one truly major error.  When he equated virulent, antisemitic rioters in Charlottesville with peaceful demonstrators, (“good people on both sides”), he either unmasked innate racism or carried too far his exploitation of the understated racism of his backers.

It Trump is not a racist, he would rank as an opportunist.  He exploits other people’s prejudice. He attacks anybody, and has his own distinctive style of discrimination when it comes to people he regards as an inferior opponent or a “loser.”   

The signal that he dismisses you comes when he gives you a demeaning nickname.  Clashing over the handling of the L.A. riots, Trump labelled California Gov. Gavin Newsom as “Gov. New Scum.”  Not only is this unacceptable in civil society, but such childish name-calling by a bully is yet another sign of what looks like a fifth-grader’s mentality.

After nationally recognized events revealed institutional racism, official agencies undertook programs to encourage diversity, inclusion and equity.  DEI became a way of ensuring that minorities that had been subject to discrimination would be encouraged to enter the mainstream life of the country.

This awareness of embedded racial discrimination came to be called “woke.” It applied to efforts to ensure and promote open access to equal treatment. 

But it went beyond open access to provide what looked to some like preferential access to jobs and other opportunities.  In such cases, it seemed to focus on their situation above the needs of most average people.  This gave rise to understandable opposition to woke, notably by the president.

Trump quickly exploited the concerns of those who saw woke as favoritism.  He asserts that, by recruiting minorities and women who have historically been the victims of discrimination, government has hired and promoted people of inadequate merit or competence.  If something goes wrong, he can blame it on incompetent DEI recipients.

Using federal funding flows, he punishes non-governmental entities, especially universities, for their DEI policies or alleged antisemitism.  The best way of rejecting DEI is to swiftly remove from positions of power anybody who is the member of a group that may have benefitted from equal access, regardless of their competence.

But even that is not enough.  Not all the history of a country is exemplary.  Slavery and Jim Crow racism in the U.S. is a matter of fact.  The exclusion of women from their rightful place in the professions and public life is also beyond debate.  Yet, Trump’s anti-woke policy demands rewriting history to downplay past injustice, reopening old wounds.

If Trump is not a racist, he has given racism and its supporters aid and comfort and allowed them to become more public without embarrassment.  He has undone decades of progress toward a more equal society and reversed it. If not done out of conviction, it is done for political gain.

He has also tried to distort and exploit discrimination.  The Gaza conflict raised strong opposition to Israel’s extreme measures in its over-retaliation for the horrendous and despicable Hamas attack.  Its actions, including starvation, seem aimed at the ethnic cleansing of the area.

Trump charges people with being antisemitic if they show sympathy for innocent Palestinians, who themselves have lived under Hamas control.  Opposition to Israeli official policy toward innocent Palestinians amounts to antisemitism.  When an incident occurs, he sharply criticizes the anti-Jewish attackers, but shows no sympathy for the Jewish victims.

If we are to believe that the U.S. is better off now resulting from the war against DEI, ask those who have suffered.

Do Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and women feel more comfortable in Trump’s supposedly merit-based society than they did before he returned to office?  

Can universities, heavily punished for the excessive outbursts of a few students, continue to produce world-class research? 

Is the government now more competent and unbiased than before he came to office? 

Where does it end?

  

Trump's personal presidency

 

Gordon L. Weil

I am the state.  In the original, it was “l’Ētat, c’est moi” and is attributed to Louis XIV, the king of France centuries ago.

It could be the motto of Donald Trump, the most personal president in American history. He uses the office, a public trust, as his personal property.  He rules more than he governs.

Elon Musk provides the latest proof of Trump’s personal rule.  The world’s richest man poured hundreds of millions into the Trump campaign, and he helped the president fulfill his promise to cut government spending.  The job was left to Musk, who slashed and burned his way through agency after agency.

He departed the Trump administration with the appreciation of the president ringing in his ears, but immediately savagely attacked Trump’s pet legislation, because it boosts the federal debt, contrary to what Musk thought he had been asked to do.

Trump vented his anger with Musk for opposing his “Big, Beautiful Bill” by immediately threatening to end contracts of Musk’s companies with the federal government, some providing important services. 

Trump claims that he pushed Musk out of the government.  If so, his action echoes the classic words of Frederick the Great, the powerful king of Prussia.  When he tossed out Voltaire, his philosopher in residence, he said, “When you have squeezed the juice from an orange, you throw away the peel.”

The personalization of the presidency by Trump is the hallmark of his second term.  Believing that his second election was a vindication giving him almost royal authority, he is open about his use and abuse of power. 

He has tried to retaliate against law firms whose partners have represented Democrats or others who have opposed him by undermining their ability to do business with the government.  They can get off the hook by providing his personal projects, like his library, with millions of dollars of free legal work.

He fired competent top military personnel without giving any reason.  Perhaps he concluded that a Black general and a female admiral got their jobs thanks to Biden’s DEI without regard to their merit.  His passion to purge what he sees as “woke” appointments is arbitrary and unchecked.

Because he believes that Biden became president thanks to a stolen election, a belief unsupported by any evidence, he does all he can to denigrate Biden’s presidency and make it seem like a terrible mistake.  His call for an investigation of Biden’s mental acuity during his presidency is unprecedented, but part of his effort to discredit his predecessor.

Even his tariff policy reflects his temperament rather than carefully planning.  Presidents may be able to use tariffs to deal with specific countries about specific items in trade.  But they are not supposed to use emergency powers to extend a flat tariff to virtually every country, with the notable exception of Russia, because he dislikes the U.S. trade deficit.

And what’s the basis of a 10 percent tariff?  It has less to do with each country’s trade imbalance with the U.S., if any, than with the fingers on his hands.  And why should tariffs be doubled without any economic justification from one day to the next when Trump is peeved at a country?  This is personal and not serious trade policy.

Then, there’s the presidential plane.  Believing he should have the world’s best executive aircraft and tired of waiting for Boeing, he induced Qatar to give the U.S. a luxury plane it had been unable to sell.  It will cost taxpayers millions to make the plane secure and suitable. 

Somehow, his presidential library is supposed to get the aircraft at the end of his term.  His promise not to use it then is both hollow and unenforceable.

This list skips over his family business dealings with Qatar and other countries that are making him wealthier every day.  And the sales of his crypto coins.  No previous president has ever engaged in private enterprises operating while he is in office and in countries dealing officially with him.  These are the ultimate examples of the personal presidency.  Except one.

The parade. Tens of millions of tax dollars are being spent for a huge military review on June 14, his birthday.  Such armed pomp is unusual for the U.S., but more typical of Russia, China and a few kingdoms.  He wants to keep up with the neighbors, basking in the same glory as his supposed pals Valdimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

The Constitution alone cannot stop him.  It was drafted in the belief that America would always reject one-person rule, just as did King George III.  It may not now be fully up to Trump’s challenge.

Until now, Congress and the voters have tolerated this new view of the presidency.  The Supreme Court encourages it.  There is no substantial opposition to it. 

Where are we headed?

Trump's economic moves hit real people

 

Gordon L. Weil

Since the day Donald Trump became president for the second time, the U.S. has been flooded with disruptive actions, just as he intended.

In reaction, experts and the media have issued dire warnings about the effects, intended or not, of his moves – inflation, immigration, employment, science, commerce and the future economy. Almost all these reactions have focused on the deep and long-lasting national harm his actions will cause.

While Trump’s policies must be taken seriously and the warnings should be heeded, they may seem to be happening at a far higher level than the everyday lives of most Americans.  The best the critics can muster is the observation that the effects will soon find their way down to average people.

If the effects seemed remote or even not likely to happen before they would be erased by renewed prosperity, then Trump can be reassuring and convince people that short-term pain will bring long-term gain.  His message has been that he is so brilliant that people can count on him producing the promised prosperity.

That message is still pending, but it seems increasingly possible that the pain won’t be short term, so the gain is more remote than had been originally implied. The immediate test is whether that situation will have a big enough impact on the 2026 elections to produce a Congress able to rein in Trump or even offer its own policies.

The impacts of his policies are already becoming evident in the daily lives of average citizens.  I take a look here at some of what’s happening in Maine.

The Maine license plate has for decades proclaimed the state as “Vacationland.” Tourism means a lot to the state’s economy, and a lot of the tourists come from eastern Canada.  Canadians feel at home in a familiar culture with appealing beaches and attractions.  But with Trump’s ridiculous but often repeated claim that Canada should become the 51st state, everything has changed.

This absurdity coupled with an overt effort to destroy the Canadian economy to the point that it will seek refuge in the U.S. has amazingly and quickly turned a natural friendship into hostility.  Many Canadians now dislike the U.S. and have cancelled plans to come to Maine this summer.  Maine did not give him all its electoral votes, so he likely doesn’t care about the hit to tourism.

Then, there’s inflation, a big issue for Mainers.  Under former President Biden, as the economy recovered from abnormally low inflation during Covid, inflation took off.  Though it had greatly diminished by the end of Biden’s term, the memory lingered on, and Trump continually reminded voters of it.  Kamala Harris’ response was laughably weak, so Trump scored his point.

Instead of inflation abating, especially for home prices, it began to increase.  Trump’s tariffs were not absorbed by exporters or American retailers, as he had promised.  The free market, favored by him, worked normally, and prices eventually reached consumers.  Walmart and Target prices in Maine rose sharply, as they did elsewhere.  Grocery prices remain high in a state that’s at the end of the supply line.   People noticed.

Housing is especially sensitive.  It is among the top three concerns in the state, along with inflation and immigration. Higher building costs, resulting partly from expected increased Canadian lumber prices, put homes out of reach for potential buyers. The ability of the private sector and government to push tiny homes to ease homelessness was undermined.

That happened in a special way in Maine.  The University of Maine has the world’s largest 3-D printer, and it produced a complete tiny house.  But it needs federal funding to move ahead. Because Trump dislikes Gov. Mills’ insistence on state control of trans athletic policy and the president’s aversion to academic research, the project has begun laying off workers.

Like tourism, a mainstay of the economy is lobster fishing.  Lobsters are a high-cost food whose sales track the health of the national economy.  Trump has managed to create so much uncertainty throughout the economy that consumers are holding back on many purchases and there’s concern about the impact on fishing in coming months.

Every state, every market has seen its own effects of Trump’s policies.  Just as the U.S. cannot be an economic island, neither can any state.  Broad-brush national policies have local effects that should not be ignored, especially by Congress.  Trump’s vision of American industrial greatness comes at immediate cost to the paycheck-to-paycheck population.

Trump’s popularity, though waning, survives because many people like his immigration policy and take comfort in his economic nationalism.  The ultimate judgment may come when Maine fishermen, supermarket shoppers, tourism operators and home buyers vote for their next U.S. senator just 17 months from now.

The Constitution Annoys Trump; judges act independently

 

Gordon L. Weil

For one bright, shining moment last week, the federal court system seemed to get the better of President Trump.

The U.S. Court of International Trade, a regular part of the federal court system, ruled unanimously that Trump’s use of an emergency law to change tariffs across-the-board was not permitted by that law. 

It did not question his judgment about the existence of an emergency; but rather whether his actions were allowed if there were an emergency.  That’s a critical difference.  The president’s judgment is protected by the separation of powers.  But he does not get “unbounded authority” to say what the law is; that’s the role of the courts under the same separation powers.

The Trump administration response differed.  “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” a White House spokesperson said.

This statement reflected the view that winning an election gave Trump the authority to act as he sees fit and not subject to judicial review, considered to be “judicial tyranny.”  The fact that the judges are not elected, while the president is selected by voters, makes all the difference.

Disparaging the judiciary, because it is controlled by unelected judges, misses the point.  The Trump administration may see this presidency as an unusual chance for the exercise of supreme power, unimpeded by either a GOP Congress or an unelected court.  Or, just as likely, they may reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution.

Federal judges were intentionally given life appointments to remove them from the political wars of the day.  “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”  Under “a government of laws, not of men,” all must obey the law.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argued that “permanent tenure” in office guarantees the independence of justices, allowing them to ensure that the other branches of government do not violate the Constitution.

Hamilton continued: “This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men … sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which have a tendency … to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.”

In short, the non-elected status of judges is essential to their independence so they can serve a prime function of the government – protecting the people from their government if it goes beyond the limits of the balanced powers “we, the people” authorized.  That may prove inconvenient or annoying to Trump, but that’s exactly what was intended.

Trump is not the only president to try to exceed his authority.  In a recent example, former President Biden used a twisted interpretation of a law intended for a different purpose to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to forgive student loan debt.  He lacked congressional approval. The unelected Supreme Court appropriately overruled the elected president.

Trump took advantage of a growing conservatism to win his 2016 election.  He turned to the Federalist Society, the leading conservative legal organization, for nominees to the federal bench.  These judges overruled abortion rights. Trump had correctly counted on them to produce a decision consistent with his own position.

In his second term, he has learned in one case after another that his appointees, while conservative, are mostly competent jurists, willing to oppose his initiatives.  They may render conservative interpretations of the laws and Constitution.  Trump has come to realize that they are conservatives, but not necessarily Trumpers.  They will not automatically fall in line behind his policies.

Imbued, for the time being, with a sense of unlimited power drawn from his electoral vindication, Trump now attacks the Federalist Society.  He may forget that six of the nine members of the Supreme Court, on which he will ultimately depend to affirm his policies, are members of the Federalist Society.

Whenever Trump receives an unfavorable federal court decision, he often lashes out at the judges, claiming they are corrupt or partisan.  He seeks to undermine public confidence in the judiciary, possibly hoping the judges will retreat to save their reputations.  Some of his backers say the judges should be impeached for denying the demands of the elected president.

Trump also shows a massive disrespect for the court system by pardoning hundreds of serious criminal offenders who were convicted in jury trials.  He sets himself up as a new court of appeals, rewarding political allies and major contributors.

As I have discussed last week and earlier, the Supreme Court may make or break many Trump policies when it takes a closer look at the extent of his presidential power.  The outcome could go either way, but his attacks don’t help him make his case at court.

 

The law versus the president

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump’s initiatives have produced a flood of legal actions, charging him with violating laws and the Constitution.  His challengers ask the courts to make sound legal interpretations in their favor, no matter the political orientation of the judges.

The complainants should be worried.  The Supreme Court may share Trump’s expansive view of the presidency, giving him legislative powers.

A second cause of concern is that the courts appear to have begun tipping the balance of power among the three branches of government in their favor.  The legislative power is rapidly fading, as members of Congress are more concerned with self-preservation than the national interest.

The Supreme Court seems to favor Trump.  Its decision in Trump v. U.S. authorized an almost unchecked presidency. Its recent orders allowing the president to control supposedly independent regulatory agencies highlight the Court majority’s agreement with Trump and support for the concept of the unitary presidency.

Look at its handling of Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship.  Instead of making a clear statement on his tortured interpretation, the Court has hidden behind a procedural question to delay a ruling.  Despite clear language and its own solid precedent, it allows Trump to create uncertainty for millions of people.  Its slow response appears intentional.

Oddly enough, a Maine case may be the best indication of a runaway judiciary that, like the president, denies checks and balances that are essential to the American political system.  Here’s the story.

Years ago, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court decided a case pitting mortgage customers against the banks holding their mortgages.  The case related to the speed and ease with which foreclosures could take place.  The Court decided in favor of the customers.

Last year, a new case appeared in which the banks sought to reverse the earlier decision.  A judge now on the Court is a lawyer who represented the banks in the earlier proceeding.   She received some advice that she need not recuse herself and she didn’t.  Hers became the deciding vote in a 4-3 ruling that favored the banks.  Her former clients won.

The official judicial ethics committee found a conflict of interest.  The committee can take no further action; the decision is up to the Supreme Court.  It has done nothing, at least so far.

The Maine Legislature is considering a bill for a study on how to apply judicial ethics to the Supreme Court.  But the Court informed the legislative committee that even its consideration was unconstitutional, because a study could not lead to legislation.  The Court asserted that it alone has judicial power, and the Legislature cannot act.  Obviously, it would rule that any such action is unconstitutional.

Carry this assertion over to the federal level.  Congress can define court jurisdiction.  If Congress were to rein in the Supreme Court from its broad support of a dominant president, it probably would face a presidential veto, and the Court could rule its law as unconstitutional.  Without any appeal, the only reactions then available would either be adding justices or amending the Constitution.

In one of the wisest political acts of his presidency, Joe Biden vetoed the addition of scores of federal judges, all of whom would have been named by Trump.  Had he accepted that he was a one-term president, he might also have been willing to propose increasing the size of the Supreme Court to restore some balance.  Lincoln and FDR both did.

The president is radically changing the Constitution as it has evolved over the centuries.  Trump appears to believe that, in an emergency he declares, he is not bound by the Constitution, the laws or the courts. His position implies that “democracy” no longer works and should be replaced by a presidency of unlimited power.

Congress, when dominated by the president’s party, is proving to be a docile accomplice.  The U.S. now has achieved the goal that then Speaker Newt Gingrich sought in the 1990’s – parliamentary government in which party discipline translates into unified support of a party’s president and unified opposition to the other party.

The Supreme Court, with its jurisdiction under attack by the Trump administration, could educate the president on what the law is. That’s what the U.S. Court of International Trade did this week, when it overturned almost all of Trump’s tariffs.  However, the Supreme Court looks more likely to join the other branches in transforming the American political system. 

The people hold the power to settle the matter in the 2026 congressional elections.  Does the American voter want to replace constitutional checks and balances by presidential rule?   Can they elect a Congress that recovers its powers and restores the intended balance with the president and the Court? That may be the real choice next year.

 

What the Democrats didn't do

 

Gordon L. Weil

Here’s some news you may have missed this past week.

Though sure to be outvoted by House Republicans, Democrats issued their own comprehensive legislative package, calling it their “Big, Realistic Bill.”  In it, they noted where they have common ground with the GOP on several key aspects of immigration issues.  The bill was backed by all Democrats, while some Republican members said they liked aspects of it.

A group of Democrats announced a new social media outlet called “Truth Now.”  A rotating team of Democratic editors, including some members of Congress, intend, “to keep up a steady flow of proposals, facts and fact-checking.”  Their motto: “There’s nothing as dangerous as fake news.”

Democratic congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries announced that their legislative work left them insufficient time to serve as the principal Democratic spokespersons.  Together with the Democratic National Committee, they will name a single spokesperson to hold daily press briefings for the White House and congressional press corps.

The DNC plans to create “The Democratic Forum,” a summit meeting later this year to include congressional leaders, governors, state party representatives and others to identify and develop unified policy positions for use across the country in next year’s elections.  The DNC chair said that the first step to victory is building unity around a creative set of proposals.

You missed all that, right? 

Of course, that’s because none of it happened. 

Instead, the Democrats chose to stick to the same failed policy they have pursued since 2016 – Trump will self-destruct, and they will be left standing to pursue great policies like those that brought them success under FDR.  They will look for attractive candidates to relentlessly attack Trump policies.

In short, the Democrats expect to win by waiting for Trump to lose, thanks to his obviously divisive policies.  They fail to notice that they are no more popular than Trump and his loyal Republican GOP.  

The Democrats are poor communicators.  During Joe Biden’s term, a week would go by without a word from him, as aging kept him out of the public eye.  Filling the Dems’ vacuum, a relentless Trump issues pronouncements on his own social media, which he has made his main tool for governing.

The Democrats need simple messages that focus on the concerns of most Americans, regardless of party.   Scoring points in congressional hearings doesn’t reach most people out here.  This is not an academic debate. This is politics, and politics today is war.

Democratic leadership should define party policy.  Here are my ideas on the issues they should address simply and directly.

The debt.  Too much and growing.  It could devour the budget.  Who will pay and when?

Taxes. We ask for a lot from government, but don’t pay for it.  With much debt, we must turn to taxes.  A fair system means tax increases, not decreases, for the wealthiest.

Your rights. The Bill of Rights is meant to protect people in the U.S. from the government. If government strips rights from anybody, it comes closer to being able to do the same thing to you.

Budget. All agree that there’s waste and marginal programs.  But today’s slash and burn kills innocent victims.  The Democrats should demand each department meet a spending target by setting priorities.  The president and Congress would have to sign off.  

Less fortunate neighbors.  Our market system inevitably leaves some people behind.  Most Americans are compassionate and want to help the poor and disadvantaged to participate in the economy and lead decent lives.  That’s nothing new.   Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not political playthings; they have become part of the fabric of America.

Immigration.  This great country should be able to control the flow of immigrants, who can gain their freedom and boost our economy.  While illegal immigrants who are criminals should be deported, mass deportation will deprive the country of loyal residents who make real contributions.

Biden.  The Democrats are moving on from the Biden years.  His policies do not always meet the needs of today.  We respect the past, but our eyes are on the future.

Economy.  Inflation was up during the Covid recovery, but it’s no longer high.  We must keep prices stable, while allowing the work force to earn more as it serves a more advanced economy.  That involves issues ranging from where and how long people work to direct aid to improve skills.

Of course, the Democrats disagree with the Republicans on almost all these issues. But they should spend less time attacking the GOP and more on making their own case.

This approach raises risks for future Democratic electoral success.  But their current policy of pure negativity may continue it on the path to failure.  Given the dire situation of American politics, it’s time to take risks.

 

U.S. foreign policy failing

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump set his highest priority foreign policy objectives: reducing or eliminating the U.S. trade deficit, ending the war between Russia and Ukraine and resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza.

He promised early results and took swift action once in office.  He has failed, thus far at least, on all three.

On trade, Trump misused emergency legislation to impose high tariffs to virtually all countries for trade in goods.  “I’m using trade to settle scores and to make peace,” he said.  Settling scores means eliminating unfavorable trade balances, which he claims were intentionally caused by other countries.  After that, Trump’s version of peace would presumably prevail.

He believed he could settle scores painlessly. Foreign suppliers would absorb the impact of the tariffs. They would pay the tariffs, increasing foreign revenues flowing to the U.S. Treasury.  If they raised their prices to cover the tariffs, higher cost American manufacturers could regain market share. 

He did not count on retaliation and resistance from others.   He resisted accepting that end-use customers would pay for the tariffs. He ignored the effect of retaliation on essential American imports. And he did not take account of the impact of his constant tariff changes on corporate investing and consumer confidence.

But retaliation came from China and Canada, both providers of essential imports. Retail prices began to increase.  The stock market sank as tariffs rose.  Partners began to diversify their trade away from the U.S., losing confidence in the reliability of American policy.  The dollar as the world standard wobbled.  Trump backed off.

As for Ukraine, Trump had boasted that he could settle the conflict in a day.  That would have to mean the full and immediate surrender of Ukraine to the Russians, resulting from a cutoff of U.S. support.

Trump thinks little of Ukraine. His first impeachment was caused by his attempt to force Ukraine President Zelenskyy to dig up evidence against Hunter Biden.  He knew nothing of the centuries-old effort by Russia to suppress Ukraine, even going so far as starvation, or of Putin’s failure to keep earlier “peace” agreements.

He believed that Russia would ultimately overpower Ukraine, which should, in effect, surrender to prevent the unnecessary loss of life.  But Ukraine and powerful European allies understood that Putin would not respect a settlement and was trying to relaunch Soviet-style domination. 

With or without the U.S., Ukraine would resist no matter the cost.  When Trump realized he was dealing with two, not one, strong-willed forces, he essentially abandoned his peacemaking, potentially leaving the defense of Ukraine to itself and its European allies.

After the Hamas attack on Israel, Trump fully backed the Israeli response.  But Israel gradually went beyond a proportional response.  It seeks to take over Gaza, the Hamas home base, on the way to complete domination of Palestine.  Trump offered the fantastic prospect of turning the territory into an American seaside resort after expelling the Palestinians.

As the harshness of Israeli actions became apparent, sympathy grew for the target Arab populations.  Critics of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians could find themselves labelled as antisemitic by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Trump’s supporters. 

Netanyahu stepped up his inhumane pressure on Gaza, eventually starving many there.  Israel’s international support faded. Even Trump responded to the starvation and increased both his pressure on Israel and his distance from it.  Some Israelis warned the nation could become an international pariah. 

Trump had bet on Israel, but slowly came to understand the advantages of improved links with Arab states and the disadvantages of giving Netanyahu unconditional support.  His peacemaking on behalf of Israel turned into dealmaking with the Arab nations, with Israel excluded.

Trump’s policies have failed.  Tariffs could not be drastically raised.  Ukraine and Russia would fight on.  Israel would prolong the Gaza War.

Trump may yet turn all this around.

He should roll back his across-the-board effort to “settle scores” and negotiate individual accords with major trading partners.  Top priority should go to Mexico, Canada and, if possible, China. Each accord must be objectively screened for its potential domestic impact, and deficits must be accepted as a fact of life.

On Ukraine, the U.S. should join with Europe to tighten sanctions on Russia and let Putin know that Ukraine will have long-term support until a ceasefire and negotiations without any preconditions take place.

Joining also with the Europeans, the U.S. should make clear that a two-state Israel-Palestine solution must be adopted, no matter how difficult that would be.  The rebuilding of Gaza and its society should begin under a newly elected Palestinian Authority.  The U.S, could be the economic partner of Israel and Arab countries in creating a truly regional economy.

These may seem like unrealistically lofty objectives.   But Trump has the potential to surprise and influence the world by changing course. 

Trump won’t win Nobel Prize

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump works hard at trying to earn the label of peacemaker.  He has his eyes on the Prize -- the Nobel Peace Prize.  He won’t win it.

Though he may charge that the Peace Prize is worthless unless he wins it or that the vote was “stolen,” some factors influencing the award are not aimed at him personally, and he seems not to understand them.  They make it impossible for him to win.

The selection is made by a special Norwegian committee from a list of nominees proposed by hundreds of people worldwide.  The five-member committee is appointed by the Norwegian parliament. To ensure that it cannot be seen as representing the country’s policies, it does not include any public office holders.

Alfred Nobel set idealistic standards for the Peace Prize and the Peace Prize committee continues to honor them.  Its selections often are meant to promote his version of peace and not only as a reward for a winner’s past peacemaking.

For example, the committee saw the award to Barack Obama, soon after he became president, as a sign of its hope for change in the world.  It wanted to encourage what it saw as his commitment to nuclear disarmament and fewer barriers to international cooperation.  It did not link the award to his historic election.

Fifty years ago, I wrote an article asserting that all Nobel Prizes, including the science awards, are political.  They are even more obviously political now. The committees balance regions and countries, favor some rivals over others and have their own leanings.  They often react slowly and follow other awards, especially in the sciences.

Why will Trump fail?

His view of peacemaking seems to consist of getting two sides in a controversy to stop shooting at one another.  He does not necessarily require that they agree on a settlement with lasting effect. 

Nobels don’t go for this minimal result.  The agreement between Egypt and Israel continues, despite calamitous events in the Middle East.  An agreement between Israel and Hamas or between Ukraine and Russia would have to be more than a ceasefire.  Each would involve more than real estate, but would touch on national sovereignty and survival.  That’s not quick or easy to do.

Even if he were lauded for gaining a ceasefire, Nobel Peace Prizes go to the two sides making an agreement, not the mediator who may have shepherded the deal.  George Mitchell got no reward for the Good Friday agreement in Northern Island.  Although he won later for other efforts, Jimmy Carter was not recognized for the Israel-Egypt accord.

The Peace Prize goes more often to people exercising “soft power” than those using “hard power.”  Greater emphasis is placed on negotiations and shared values than on the use of force to reach an agreement. 

The Nobel “art of the deal” involves negotiations and voluntary compromise.  It may entail political risk for the parties and even for the mediator.  By itself, Trump’s coercive Oval Office meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, may have torpedoed his chances for the Prize.

Nobody is perfect, so it’s likely that any Prize recipient has defects.  But the committee seeks to draw attention to admirable people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela or George Marshall.  Here, Trump’s personal prejudices, his retaliation against opponents, and his attacks on universities plus his disrespect for the law, all count against him.

While the Nobel Peace Prize Committee recognizes that its awards may be controversial, its choices favor winners likely to gain broad international support.  Trump’s aggressiveness in trade policy and attitudes toward Canada and Greenland, part of Denmark, a fellow Scandinavian nation, do not make him an obvious choice for the Norwegian committee. 

In fairness, his approach could bring positive results, but they would fall far short of Nobel Prize standards.  His hard power approach has recently sent a message to Israel, which continues to destroy Gaza. 

His deal with the Yemini Houthis about the release of an American hostage, his business-oriented trip to Arab countries while skipping Israel, and his negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal are all moves that could put pressure on Israel.  The outcome of his efforts might replace the attempted Israeli military solution to Middle East relations with regional economic cooperation, just as happened in Europe, though he may miss the similarity.

At the first sign of success, he is likely to assert his claim to the unreachable Prize.  He may not understand why Barack Obama or Al Gore or Jimmy Carter or many unknown people have won the award.  It is this very lack of understanding of the politics of hope that will cost him the Prize.