Despite rush to unity after 9/11, U.S. remains historically divided

 

Gordon L. Weil

As the U.S. marked the 20^th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the pundits came out in full force. 

Many lamented that the sense of national unity in 2001 had been so quickly replaced by deep divisiveness.

The Al Qaeda attacks gave all Americans, regardless of their political views, a common enemy.  The country immediately united, and Congress granted the federal government unusually strong powers to fight terrorism.  A token of that common commitment was the Patriot Act, giving the government the power to violate privacy.

At two earlier major turning points in American history, people had also displayed national unity. At those times, most Americans understood they faced a common adversary.  Yet, beneath that unity, a deep split existed.

The first event was the war against Britain to win American independence.  The Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 is mostly a long list of bitter complaints against the British king for failing to give the colonists, most having British origins, the same rights as their fellow Brits. Instead, he treated them as second-class underlings.

The opposition to arbitrary British rule was strong enough to yield independence even among people that could not agree on treating their African underlings as they wanted to be treated by the British.  On slavery, Americans were deeply divided.

Southern colonies threatened not to join in declaring their independence if the northern colonies insisted on condemning slavery in line with the theory that “all men are created equal.”  For them, slavery might be more important than independence. 

The North wanted independence above all and dropped a reference to slavery from the draft Declaration.  That decision, papering over a deep split, may be the basis of the centuries of divisiveness that have followed.

Another wave of national unity came after the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941 that brought the United States into World War II.  Divided just the day before, the country unified to fight the Nazis and Japan. Once again, deep differences, this time over the huge economic and social changes brought by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, were set aside.

In these two cases and the reaction to 9/11, Americans showed they would unite against a common foe.  But divisiveness, so much deplored today, was always present. Unity in favor of a common goal, other than winning a war, has always been elusive.

The common theme of divisiveness goes back to the Revolution and continues uninterrupted today.  The conflict over race could have been settled by the Civil War, but it wasn’t. The North won its cause of preserving the Union.  But the South won its cause of preserving racism.

Just as the colonies had rebelled against Britain, the Confederacy rebelled against the United States.  The American flag became a worldwide symbol against tyrannical rule, and the rebel flag became a national symbol of resistance to government limits on a person’s rights. 

The Confederacy’s Stars-and-Bars came to represent the assertion of individual rights against government.  That sentiment extended to opposition to official authority on many issues, and the Confederate flag could be seen all across the country.

In recent decades, it was finally recognized as a symbol of racism, which became increasing difficult to profess publicly.  Only with the arrival on the national scene of Donald Trump was the stigma of harboring racial prejudice somewhat relieved through attacks on “political correctness.” 

Trump flags fly as Confederate banners once did. Like the Confederate flag, they may mean less about Trump as a political figure than serving as an expression of personal defiance of governments, seen as limiting personal rights.

Today, a conflict exists between governments that require vaccinations and wearing masks to control Covid 19 and opponents who believe that such demands violate their personal rights.  At its core, this conflict is political and regional.

Eleven states in the South joined the Confederacy, trying to break away from the United States to preserve slavery.  Now, nine of those states are among those with the worst vaccination records and nine, duplicates except for one, are among the states with the highest case rates.  Only Virginia is absent from both lists.

Nine of the formerly Confederate states voted for Trump in 2020. Most are trying to change their voting rules to undermine expanded voting by African-Americans and Hispanics to ensure that traditionally conservative GOP control can continue.

While Americans may unite against a common threat, history shows more evidence of division that it may have its roots in the compromise that brought 13 colonies together to declare their independence. It has deepened as the two sides reach almost equal political strength.

Divisiveness is American, and the battle between public health and individual rights amounts to another Civil War.  The depth of division may, as before, threaten the American system of government.

Supreme Court rules on abortion as Congress defaults; becomes real federal legislature

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. Supreme Court just sent a strong signal that it could soon change its collective mind and rule that a woman has no constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.

By taking no action on an appeal to suspend a new Texas law, it took a giant step toward acting as the national legislature.  It took charge, because of a vacuum left by Congress.  Forget about three equal branches of government and their checks and balances. 

The Court allowed into effect a Texas law that limits access to abortions to the point of eliminating it.   Texas tried to dodge responsibility for its own law by only allowing private parties to enforce its extreme terms.

Congress has passed no abortion rights law, leaving the Supreme Court to create such rights. That makes it the federal lawmaker, despite claims by justices that they only apply the law but do not make it.

All nine justices recognized that Texas wants to outlaw abortions. What the Court has legislated as a right, it looks about ready to repeal.

Justices understood that, by allowing the law to go into effect, abortions in Texas would stop.  Providers lack the resources to withstand a possible flood of cases, even if many have no factual basis.  The law raises major political and constitutional issues.

The five-member majority quietly let the law go into effect, leaving abortion providers to find some way to bring an acceptable legal action against it.  It is possible, they noted, that a Court decision more than a century ago could block it from second-guessing state courts.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the law should be suspended until the federal court system ruled on it using normal legal filings and hearing procedures.

Roberts was supported by the three justices considered to be liberals.  But they also noted that, in their view, the Texas law violated the Court’s own earlier decisions allowing abortions.  

The Court long ago adopted the principle that it would usually stick to earlier constitutional decisions on which people relied.  Sen. Susan Collins said that, before voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as a justice, he agreed that abortion rights were such “settled law.”

The Court chose one earlier decision, limiting its ability to overturn a state’s action, over another, a woman’s right to an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy with no state allowed to stop it.  Before ruling on the constitutional conflict between its decisions, it effectively decided – for the state.

Its refusal on procedural grounds to delay the Texas law permitted a result that it had previously found illegal.  That way of thinking could ripple across the states on other issues, and that’s why Roberts wanted first to follow usual judicial procedures.

Whatever the effect of the Court’s failure to act, it deployed a method it increasingly uses to avoid taking clear responsibility.  It has reduced the number of its formal decisions, substituting the so-called “shadow docket” to make major rulings.  Under it, without hearings or legal briefs, key decisions are hidden by making them seem only procedural.

The Trump administration sought such quick action 41 times in four years and won 28 times.  In the 16 years of the G.W. Bush and Obama administrations, it was used only eight times. It seems conservative justices prefer fast answers and little transparency.

The Democrats may have worried about losing a vote to establish a federal right to an abortion, which would put the Roe v. Wade decision into law.  But public opinion now seems to encourage such a bill, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says one will be offered.

While such a bill might pass in the House, its success in the Senate is less likely.  Still, the Democrats see the Court’s shadowy feint at repeal of Roe v. Wade as a winning political cause for them.

Congress has the constitutional authority to shape the Supreme Court’s powers. It could control the use of the shadow docket and even limit the Court’s ability to determine if laws are constitutional.  That power is itself derived from a Court decision in 1803, not from the Constitution.

President Biden has created a commission to look into the Supreme Court.  Should the Court be enlarged to reduce conservative control?  Court packing is not politically popular, but there’s a way to appoint temporary federal judges. They could redress the political balance and then gradually be phased out as vacancies occur.

Whatever comes from the Texas matter, action to reverse the unelected Court’s growing legislative power seems overdue.  For Congress to regain the elected branch’s control of legislation requires the Senate to end the filibuster so that both houses can make decisions by majority vote. 

Anti-vaxers cause ‘collateral damage’ to vulnerable Americans

 

Note: Also available on Substack. Please subscribe. Free. 

Gordon L. Weil

“We took important and dangerous action, and inevitably some innocent people were affected,” the battle report says.  It expresses regrets. 

The supposedly unavoidable harm to people who were not the intended target is labeled “collateral damage.”   You’re supposed to shrug it off as an inevitable price that must be paid to accomplish an essential objective.

Covid-19 has produced the same effect, not on some distant battlefield, but across this country.  But it is other people, not the government, who take the action, and they express no regrets.

What has turned out to be overwhelmingly important to many people is not the fight against the coronavirus, but rather their resistance to that fight, even if it causes collateral damage to their fellow Americans.

People refuse to be vaccinated because of their opposition to the kind of government power that can require them to take action for their own good and the well-being of others.  They proclaim their absolute right to freedom.  It may be a case of “my rights are more important than your lives.”

Many people have been hopeful that the vaccines would allow a return to the “old normal,” allowing for travel, crowds, and restaurants.  The unexpected resurgence of the virus, thanks to the Delta variant and the unvaxed, has been difficult to accept.  With that reluctance may have come resistance to masks and shots.

“We don’t seem to care that we have these really high infection rates,” a British professor told the New York Times. “It looks like we’re just accepting it now – that this is the price of freedom.”  Living with Covid 19 may be the “new normal” for some people.

The uncertain messages about the effectiveness of anti-Covid19 measures have inevitably raised doubts.  The scientific community has tried to discover how to deal with a sudden and worldwide deadly virus using its normal methodical process.  Mandating vaccinations usually comes only after years of trial-and-error research.

The result of both the urgency of stemming the abrupt rise in the death rate and the amazing speed in coming up with vaccines may be an overly optimistic hope that Covid 19 could be wiped out quickly. That would have been unprecedented.   The public may now be forced unhappily to accept the absence of an expected miracle.

In the end, Covid 19 can be brought under control. It is possible that the new normal will involve many people continuing to wear masks, required vaccinations, more remote work and less business travel, and the continued growth of retail business conducted online. It may be possible to lead something like normal lives though with a different lifestyle.

In Maine, the state with the oldest population, and in the U.S. as a whole, with an aging population, the lifestyle change is occurring.  Older people are among the most vulnerable to Covid 19 because of reduced natural immunity. Though vaccinated, many must drastically limit their social contacts and travel.

The spread of the coronavirus deprives retirees, who must exercise special care, of the expected benefits of retirement, including family contacts.  The activities they forfeit may never again be possible as they age. 

The effect on life in the retirement years is part of the collateral damage of the failure to fight Covid 19.  Anti-vaxers rob retirees.

Of course, the problems of seniors are not as serious as the increased hospitalization and deaths caused by the community spread of the virus that could be reduced if more of the population was vaccinated and wore masks.  This is the greatest collateral damage.

The costs they impose on others are unheeded by those whose sole concern is their own opposition to wearing a mask or getting a shot. The high-flown assertion of their freedom looks remarkably like simple selfishness.

Making the harm even more dangerous is the political exploitation of the opposition to protective measures.  The governors of Texas and Florida, both rumored to plan on presidential runs, actively oppose masks and vaccinations that would reduce health risks. They appeal to anti-vaxers for their own political gain.

Some pundits and social media multiply the effect.  They exploit news of evolving research to falsely claim that vaccines, proven to work, are not effective.  They promote resistance to any government vaccine, yet come up with unproven, dangerous remedies for those who contract Covid 19.

The emphasis on personal freedom, even at the expense of others, is part of a belief that rights are absolute. While it sounds good, it can be destructive.  Protecting the rights of each person requires some mediating mechanism.  In the U.S., that’s a freely created government.

In the end, the biggest long-term danger from Covid 19 may not be its threat to public health, but the threat posed by its opportunistic opponents to the sense of community that is essential to democracy.

Impossible to win in Afghanistan: Q&A on failed nation building and Taliban

Gordon L. Weil

The Twenty-Year War is ending with the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. 

But America’s longest ever war cannot simply be understood by the evacuation from Kabul.  Here are key questions about this wasteful conflict that can help put the war in perspective.

Why did the U.S. go to war in Afghanistan?  After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the headquarters of the terrorist group Al Qaeda was found there, sheltered by the Taliban, religious zealots who ruled most of the country. The U.S. went in to stamp out Al Qaeda, which required ending Taliban control.

Did the U.S. mission change?  President George W. Bush committed U.S. forces without defining the conditions under which they would leave. Though he had said he opposed “nation building,” that’s just what the U.S. tried to do.  Under four presidents, it failed.

Could Afghanistan be turned into “a stable and open” society?  It has never been a unified country, but had been ruled by regional warlords.  The Soviet Union had failed to govern it and withdrew.  Even legendary novelist Rudyard Kipling had revealed how ungovernable and divided it was.

Why couldn’t the U.S. defeat the Taliban?  The Talibs have had a long history in Afghanistan and knew they could wait out the Americans.  Long ago, British statesman Winston Churchill wrote about their entrenched power.  They could endlessly develop and deploy home-grown terrorism to dominate most areas of the country.

Why couldn’t the new government in Kabul take control?   It was riddled by corruption and incompetence.  While it represented an attempt to graft Western values onto local roots, it lacked broad popular support.  It was simply an overlay on historic tribal and Taliban structures.

Also, it was an economic failure. It depended on suitcases of American dollars flown in regularly.  In contrast, the Taliban economy is based on opium sales and few public services, notably schools.

Why did the U.S. and its European allies remain there?  The goal was to prevent the growth of new terrorist bases in the country.  There was progress toward that objective so long as Western troops were on the ground. But terrorism had grown up elsewhere, and it was impractical to keep troops everywhere it might occur.

What about women in Afghan society?  The Taliban suppressed virtually all women’s rights. So long as it did not control the country, those rights could develop and did.  But the society itself did not come to value those rights enough to resist the Taliban after the U.S. troops were withdrawn.

Could the U.S. have struck a deal with the Taliban?  It tried direct talks, even excluding the Kabul government it had fostered. That alone must have sent a message that only the U.S. stood between the people and the Taliban.   Knowing they could outwait the Americans, the Taliban never would make a deal.

Why did the U.S. withdraw from Afghanistan?  It cost too much.  Funds that could have gone to meet urgent domestic needs poured continuously into the country.  Even more important, it cost the lives of Americans and others without producing the desired result.

Both Donald Trump, during his presidency, and President Joe Biden read the message from the American people that Afghanistan meant little when compared with the sacrifice, and it was time to leave. Some generals seemed to have a hard time accepting the failure and favored staying.

Why is the withdrawal a chaotic crisis?  Biden thought the government would fall to the Taliban, but that it might save key cities, resulting in a settlement of sorts.  He believed a gradual withdrawal would be possible by continued government control for a limited period.  In effect, the U.S. bought its own propaganda about the Kabul government.

Biden’s policy was based on this faulty assumption, which provided an overly optimistic view of the country’s support for the government without U.S. military backing.  He failed to order a withdrawal of diplomats and other civilians in line with the troop drawdown. This was a serious and costly error.

What about Afghans who helped the U.S.?  Biden says they will be helped to leave the country. But it would be naïve to believe that all Afghans seeking U.S. help themselves helped the U.S. Some opportunistically chose a side; some simply see a way out to the West.  Those left behind will undoubtedly survive as an American political issue.

Is all lost despite the effort?  Russia and China are not likely to do better than previous outside powers in this failed country.  The U.S. has learned a lot about the country and can use air strikes to damage terrorist bases as they develop.  In the end, the U.S. dollar might have greater long-term influence on the Afghan economy than U.S. troops had on its governance.

  

Census shows demographics favor Democrats, but GOP resists change

Gordon L. Weil

America’s worst kept secret just came out.

It’s the Census, mandated by the Constitution to be conducted every ten years to set the number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives each state gets.  Its purpose is political, and the pundits are now having a fine time with it.

It’s a poorly kept secret because it has become easier to keep track of the population annually.   This time, it confirmed some of what we already knew, but provided at least three results that caught new attention.

The country had previously recognized that the non-white population is growing faster than the white population.  The clear message is that at some point in the next 20 to 30 years, the majority in the U.S. will be non-white.

The surprise this year was that, for the first time in U.S. history, there were fewer whites than at the last count, not merely a smaller percentage.  A lower birth rate, an aging population and fewer European immigrants brought the change. The non-white American majority will develop sooner than expected.

Even Maine, while remaining the whitest state, is showing signs of change as its minority population has begun growing faster.

Race designations in the Census result are the choice of each individual respondent.  A surprise this year was sharp growth among people who classified themselves as being of mixed origins. 

Intermarriage between people from different ethnic groups has become more common and more accepted.  Though they may have called themselves Black, both former President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamela Harris could have chosen the multiple race category.

The third fact revealing change is the movement of people out of rural America to metropolitan areas.  Many big cities are growing, while small towns are declining.  Cities have more diverse populations, while rural areas have been overwhelmingly white.

In Maine, without big cities, the major urban areas have gained while rural counties have either lost population or have experienced relatively small growth. 

A widely accepted article of truth is that non-whites will predominantly be Democrats, while whites, especially those in rural America, are Republicans. That belief has led to the conclusion that country will move toward the community-oriented politics of urban Democrats and away from rural GOP conservative individualists.

Whether that thesis is true remains to be seen.  As non-whites gain increased prosperity, promised by the “American dream,” the question may be whether they change their politics as they expand their pocketbooks.

So why is a shift to the Democrats assumed?  To a considerable degree, the answer may come from the Republican Party.   At the moment, it is trying to construct political obstacles to minimize the effects of the inevitable change in the ethnic make-up of the population and block Democratic control.

The GOP tool is voter suppression.  Where Republicans now control state governments, they are passing laws making election access more complicated.  They see their traditional white supporters as being more likely to show up at the polling place than are newer, minority voters. Measures to ease voting like longer voting periods or mail-in ballots are being curtailed.

In addition, the GOP uses congressional and state legislative redistricting powers to draw specially designed districts that can produce the smallest number of Democratic legislators.  Through such gerrymandering, they can prolong their control.  That allows time to adopt laws and rules that may be difficult to topple if the Democrats gain control.

In short, the Republicans are attempting to extend their reach far into the future even as power may be slipping away from them.  They seek to delay Democrats gaining political control even as the number of non-white voters increases.

Whether this policy makes sense could be questionable.  It’s possible that some non-white voters are not natural Democrats, but resent GOP efforts to minimize their influence. In effect, the Republicans are inviting them to choose the Democrats.

Too much attention can be paid to what the Census reveals. Two other key factors don’t show up in its count, and they both seem to help the Democrats.

The increased participation of African-Americans in the electoral process shows the Obama elections were not passing events.  Two Georgia Senate races this year elected Democrats in what was a solidly GOP state, thanks to efforts to increase Black voting.  In the face of voter later suppression efforts there, the Democrats have to find ways to keep that happening.

The other change is the participation of women voters.  The major news is that white women are no longer voting similarly to white men. Their participation has grown with their independence.  The GOP has apparently ignored that change.

Political change is coming. The Census and related trends reveal that it may come sooner than 

Infrastructure bill depends on smoke and mirrors, but must bring tax increase

 

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. Senate is lying to you (and possibly to itself).  Maybe it’s in a good cause, but it’s still a lie. 

The intentional falsehood is that the bipartisan $1 trillion infrastructure bill can be financed without raising taxes.

Its use of smoke and mirrors could help explain why people don’t trust government, an unfortunate sentiment when, at the same time, it’s urging you to get a Covid-19 vaccination.

About half the money for the bill will come from unspent funds previously allocated for coronavirus recovery.  But the rest must come from newly identified revenues.  The bipartisan backers of the bill have created some funding sources that don’t pass the straight-face test.

When Congress comes up with new spending, it must go to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for a forecast of the effect of the proposal on the economy and the federal budget.  The CBO found the infrastructure bill undershot the needed revenues by $256 billion.

That means the Senate compromise failed to provide enough money to pay for its outlays. The result must be an increase in the federal debt, but the bill contains no payments for debt service.  The senators have wishfully assumed enough future economic growth to produce tax revenues that would cover the budget gap

Two of the bill’s key sponsors dismissed the CBO’s expert analysis, saying its rules limited it from considering the pie-in-the-sky accounting they use.  They simply ignored the fact that Congress had created the CBO to avoid just that kind of speculation. Several other independent reviews had come up with results like the CBO’s.

Why are some of the deal-making senators, a group that includes Maine’s Susan Collins, so willing to promote obvious “budgetary gimmicks” in light of the CBO’s official role in forecasting?  Politics.

Donald Trump, hailed for keeping his promises as president, had said he would come up with a $1 trillion infrastructure program, but did nothing. That inaction left Americans increasingly tired of potholes, crumbling bridges, inadequate telecommunications and other weak elements of the physical backbone of the country. 

President Joe Biden and the Senate dealmakers said they would do what Trump had promised.  It should make Biden and the Democrats more popular.  It could help some Republicans meet an urgent public need, possibly putting space between them and Trump, who now opposes the deal, mainly because it helps Biden.

This is a rare case where good policy and good politics exist for both sides and they could make a bipartisan deal.

The main opposition comes from most Senate Republicans.  They would accept a smaller bill using only what is already available from unspent funds and limited to items like roads and bridges.  That position insulates them from the sham revenue forecast, but falls far short of the need.

The alternative to the unfounded projections of new tax revenues from future economic growth is raising federal revenues.  A major new source of funding could have come from getting people to pay income taxes they owe rather than, well, cheating.  To do that would require strengthening the IRS.

It would seem difficult to oppose adding federal revenues by collecting taxes already due.  That’s not a tax increase, though some taxpayers would pay more.  But the Republicans refused to include measures to improve IRS tax collection, confirming the favorable GOP tax treatment of the richest Americans.

Paul Krugman, a Nobel-prize winning economist who’s now a liberal New York Times columnist, approves of using “smoke and mirrors,” because of the critical need, even if that really requires more borrowing.  Interest rates are now so low it won’t cost much, he claims. The declining value of the dollar and economic growth will allow future taxpayers easily to cover the cost.

The main problem in justifying the cost is that its advocates rely heavily on their own forecasts of congressional behavior, the economy and tax revenues.  Just two years ago, nobody could have forecast the impact of Covid-19 on the national debt.  Nor do we know what will happen in 2025 when personal income tax rates are supposed to increase.

Basing budget planning on wishful thinking is not the best way to run a government. But it may be the best way to make people believe, at least for one election cycle, that they can have something for nothing.

In the end, all government spending depends on taxes.  Taxpayers ultimately pay for debt.  But the U.S. now has an almost religious dislike of tax increases, even on the most wealthy.  Yet that’s just what’s required – now or later.

Even if it’s later, it will be a big bill. As the late Everett Dirksen, the GOP Senate leader, once supposedly quipped, “A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”

Both Dems, GOP split in two as they seek big 2022 wins

Gordon L. Weil

It’s fascinating to watch a big-time gambler in high stakes games.  The risks are great, but the pay-off could be huge.

This week’s news reveals the high roller is Donald Trump.  Using remarkable appeal to raise cash, he has staked himself to over $100 million to spend in political games.  The games are the 2022 congressional elections.

Besides Trump, the other players are President Joe Biden’s mainline Democrats, the traditional Republicans and the Democratic progressives, the party’s most liberal element.

The games will decide who controls Congress.  They could show if Trump’s election and GOP takeover was an aberration or if Biden’s victory was a fluke. In either case, they might set the new normal in American politics for a few years.

Trump Republicans seek authoritarian presidential rule that produces powerful leadership at the expense of popular democracy. That type of government can produce change more easily than the intentionally inefficient democratic process.  That’s why Trump retains political appeal.

The temptation for the Trumpers is to oppose anything the Democrats propose.  As part of the Trump gamble, they even blame the January 6 insurrection on the Democrats. 

If Trump succeeds, he will not only change American government, but would likely destroy the traditional Republican Party.  He may have been a RINO – Republican in Name Only – but he would have stolen the party.

Trump’s GOP deploys voter suppression measures in some states to keep likely Democratic voters from easy access to the polls.  Across the country, Republican dominated state governments are hard at work passing restrictive voting laws using the thin excuse of improving ballot security.

Beyond that, Trump’s millions flow to his favored candidates.  If elected, they can flip Congress back from Democratic to Republican, proving that Biden and the Democrats are the aberration.  Even a thin margin of victory could pave the way to Trump’s run for the presidency two years later.

The first test for Trump comes in the party primaries.  He wants to scare away GOP candidates who are not Trumpers.  Failing that, he tries to tip the vote to his favorites by pumping up their campaigns, enabling them to reach more voters.

In a GOP primary for a safe Republican seat in Ohio this week, Trump’s cash created the frontrunner, who won. He defeated a crowded field of traditional conservatives, though he fell far short of an outright majority. The turnout was light, but Trump’s strategy worked.

Even if Congress hedges its bets and reaches some compromises this year, the battle lines for next year remain. One major question is where do anti-Trump Republicans like Wyoming’s Liz Cheney or Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski end up?  Both are up for reelection next year.

Biden has been trying to undermine Trump’s appeal to alienated voters through massive government programs designed to produce benefits for them. Much of the spending in his array of proposals will end up in visible, local projects. That’s pragmatic politics.

In another Ohio primary this week for a safe Democratic seat, the candidates included a Biden-style practical politician and an outspoken progressive promoter of universal health insurance.   The pragmatic candidate defeated the progressive, gaining a clear majority. But the margin was small with a good turnout.

If the progressives lose their challenges to Biden’s more centrist policies, they face the question of sticking to their beliefs, sitting out the elections, and risking GOP control.  Otherwise, they will have to endorse Biden’s plans for political survival and hope for another chance.

For the Democrats finally to end Trump’s influence, they have to win big. To prove they are the new normal, the Democrats would have to overcome the traditional loss of seats by the president’s party in the mid-term elections.

That will take a lot of cash and a strong effort to get out their voters and work around voter suppression.  They could make a last push for the national popular vote. If they win only by squeaking by narrowly in 2022, they remain in jeopardy for the presidential election. If they lose, Biden’s last two years could be a bust.

Biden needs to keep the Democratic progressives involved and supportive.  The Democrats – establishment and progressives – know how to raise money.  Ultimately the question must be if they can pool it to counter Trump’s millions.

In Maine, a similar situation exists. The traditional GOP has been weakened, and it looks like the Republican Party lines up for Trumpian former Gov. Paul LePage.

Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, could be somewhat undermined by a public power referendum, which she is likely to oppose.  With no ranked choice voting for governor, she has to worry about the possibility of a vote-splitting independent challenger.

No need to proclaim “Let the games begin.”  They have.

NOTE: IF YOU RECEIVE THESE POSTS BY EMAIL, THEY WILL END IN AUGUST. PLEASE USE SUBSTACK FOR WEEKLY EMAILS.  (Substack.com  Weil's Notes) 

 

Abortion case: Can Supreme Court protect rights not in Constitution?

 

Gordon L. Weil

A major new abortion case is coming.  Possibly even more important is the sleeper issue that arrives with it.

The case just brought by Mississippi for Supreme Court consideration next year is about both abortion itself and individual rights.  The abortion issue is widely understood.  Less so, individual rights.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch wants the Court to reverse Roe v. Wade, its 1973 decision that blocked states from outlawing abortions.  She thinks the Supreme Court has no business dealing with abortion rights.

“The Constitution does not protect a right to abortion,” she wrote. “The Constitution’s text says nothing about abortion. Nothing in the Constitution’s structure implies a right to abortion or prohibits states from restricting it.”

She questions if the Court can protect a disputed right not mentioned in the Constitution.  The Court’s view has been, as even the late Justice William Rehnquist wrote while opposing Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution “embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights.”

Mississippi says any right can exist only if is “deeply rooted” in history, which it says is not true for abortions.  If that view takes hold, other rights could be questioned. For example, the right of an American also to be a citizen of another country was not deeply rooted when the Court first recognized it in 1952.

The United States was created by uniting sovereign states.  The people turned the British colonies into those states by declaring their independence from King George III.  People expected the new states to protect their liberty not crush it as the British had.

The states decided to transfer some powers to a federal government and drafted the Constitution, which was approved by special conventions of the people in the 13 states.  All new states must accept the Constitution as it is.

The protection of individual rights was a basis for the founding of the U.S. “We the People” created the Constitution to “secure the blessings of liberty” for people in the U.S.  The Declaration of Independence says that government exists to “secure” the rights that, taken together, produce liberty.

Before the Constitution could be adopted, some states said they would only agree to it if they were assured that the new federal government would not violate individual liberty and would protect some rights.  They insisted on the Bill of Rights, protecting certain rights that had been overridden by the British.

The Bill of Rights protects only against actions by government, not those of other people. For example, an employer can limit speech or carrying firearms in the workplace.  Of course, there may be laws that control private actions.

After the Civil War, the Constitution was amended to so that state governments could be required to observe the Bill of Rights just like the federal government. Over the following years, the Court also decided that it could protect personal liberty if government took action against individual rights.

So here’s where we ended up.  People have liberty in America based on rights that belong to them, and no government can take those rights away from them. While certain rights are contained in the Bill of Rights, there are other rights, like the right to privacy, that governments must also protect.

Government may limit individual rights, if people harm the rights of others when they exercise their own rights. The Court decides what limits on rights, if any, the government can apply to the rights that make up individual liberty, whether or not they are in the Bill of Rights.

Famously, freedom of speech is said not to protect shouting “fire” without there being one in a crowded theater. Government may have what the Court calls a “compelling state interest” when the community as a whole may be seriously harmed by the unlimited exercise of individual rights.

Congress has not asserted federal control of abortions, but the Supreme Court has decided in Roe v. Wade that the Constitution’s requirement to protect individual liberty from government prevents states from outright banning abortions.  It has allowed states to impose some limits if there is a compelling state interest.

The Court can and does change its mind from time to time.  That’s what Mississippi wants it to do.  Fitch may believe that because the current majority of the justices seem to have personal reservations about abortion, their views will translate into a reversal of the decision that abortion is a federally protected right under the Constitution.

At the Supreme Court, the issue may be broader than whether abortion is a protected right. The case could determine what it takes to identify an individual right requiring protection, the federal government’s role in protecting it, and whether some decisions on protecting rights should be made by the states. 

Olympics should have been canceled; politics saved it

 

Gordon L. Weil

Kick back, take it easy.  The Olympic Games are under way, giving us a break from political games.

That’s wrong, really wrong. The Olympics are highly political.

It begins with deciding who will host the Games.  Between 2000 and 2022, only one country comes up twice – China.  The International Olympic Committee apparently thought it could encourage more openness in countries as diverse as Nazi Germany in 1936 and Communist China in 2008 by letting them host.  It did not work.

China and Russia want to host, because they get global attention.  They also get home field advantage, using it to top the medals table.  They seem to think that winning increases their stature in the world.  Both won when they hosted, though Russia cheated in 2008 and got caught tampering with its doping tests.

The choice of the Olympic host country is famously subject to vote buying.  The IOC is not a government agency, so there’s no real outside control of the payoffs. Salt Lake City officials distributed “gifts” to make sure their city was chosen for 2002.

The Olympics’ bottom line is the national medal count, a measure of political prestige.  Somehow, keeping track of winners by country reveals more about the supposed merit of nations than about the world’s top athletes.

Politics even influence the choice of events.  Baseball and softball are included this year, only because host country Japan wants them.  The IOC otherwise keeps them out, because the U.S., Japan or Cuba are too likely to win.  They’re real sports with millions of fans.  Meanwhile, from 2024 on, an athlete will be able to win a gold medal in breakdancing.

A majority of the Japanese people and many others around the world reportedly believe the Games should have been canceled even at the last minute.  The stands are empty, and Japan may gain little prestige from being host.

Covid-19 is gaining again across the world, mainly because people have not been vaccinated.  The persistence in continuing with the Olympics gives implicit support to those who still refuse the shots.  Wouldn’t the strongest message about the urgent need to get vaccinated have been sent by canceling the Games?

This year, the insistence on holding the Games sends a message that the organizers put their so-called Olympic Movement ahead of public health and safety.  It may be a matter of IOC’s survival, as independent world championships have taken on increasing appeal.

The politics of prizes extends beyond sports.  The Nobel Prizes, widely regarded as the top award in the world for accomplishment in several fields, are also inevitably political.

For the sciences, the awards are given by members of a small in-group to other members of the same group.  Only scientists in a few countries have a serious chance of winning.  And it helps to be a man.  If a possible winner dies during the year, they’re out.  Giving them the award would be a drag on the ceremonies.

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a small committee of Norwegians and their selections reveal their biases.  In 2009, they picked recently elected President Obama less for what he had done than for who he was.

Maine’s George Mitchell, the peacemaker in Northern Ireland, was ignored.  The winners were the leaders of the two sides that he had successfully brought together, ignoring the fact that their followers had recently been blowing up one another.

The message is not that prizes don’t mean anything.  If their existence encourages scientists or swimmers to try harder, they produce a benefit.  If they draw popular attention to other countries and their cultures, they can broaden understanding.

Athletes and fans are props.  This year, the Games go on, though some of the best athletes may have been forced to stay home after being exposed to Covid-19. We are supposed to believe the results mean more than they actually do.

Winning is often not the idealized, objective result of fair competition.  Politics do not stop where prize competitions begin. At their worst, the Olympics will reward China next year with the world’s attention and money while it kills democracy in Hong Kong, threatens its neighbors and crushes an ethnic minority.

It may be fine to sit back and enjoy the Olympics.  It’s a show for our entertainment.  But it’s also part of the real world of politics in which we live every day.

 

Vax rate boosts Democrats; but GOP voter suppression looms

 

Gordon L. Weil

Vaccinations can tell us something about voting.

The key finding is the better a state has been vaccinated, the more likely it is to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate.

Digging a little deeper into the data may even show which states are likely to influence, if not downright determine, the outcome of the next presidential election. This could make political pundits look good.

President Joe Biden has made fighting the coronavirus the centerpiece of his first few months in office.  While Donald Trump was the big-time spender who successfully poured public funding into vaccine development, Biden has led the largely successful effort to get shots into arms.

Biden had wanted 70 percent of the eligible population to get at least one shot by July 4, but came up short.  If people who outright refused shots are added to the takers, Biden probably contacted his target.

Somewhat overlooked in his near miss was the fact that 20 states and D.C. got more than 50 percent of their population fully vaccinated.  That group of states turns out to include the Democrats’ presidential election core.   

To pick the most loyal Democratic states, we can look at how states voted in the last three presidential elections – 2012 Obama (D) beats Romney (R),  2016 Trump (R) beats H. Clinton (D), and 2020 Biden (D) beats Trump (R).

On July 4, 17 states and D.C. had more of than half of their populations fully vaccinated plus had cast their electoral vote each time for the Democratic candidate. Maine added at least three of its four votes each time. This group accounts for 206 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win a presidential election.

Its impossible to know the party affiliation of the vaccinated in these states.  But these are states where many people clearly favor public health over worries that government is too big.  They seem to accept the advice of Biden and the CDC to get vaccinated.

Not one state in which a majority of the eligible population has been fully vaccinated has voted for the Republican presidential candidate more than once in the past three elections.  In all loyal GOP states, the vaccination rate is below 50 percent.

Given the partisan/vaccination split, it is difficult to dismiss a relationship between the dominant political opinion in each state and getting or declining a free, government-sponsored shot.

Beyond the core Democratic group, two additional states – Illinois and Nevada missed the 50 percent rate, but have voted for the Democrat in each of the past three elections.  Based on their records, they are likely to continue to vote that way, adding 25 electoral votes.

Three more states, which have a vaccination rate over 50 percent, have voted for the Democrats, but with exceptions. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin voted Republican in 2016 and Maine has twice denied the Democrat one vote.  If the Democrats picked up these 30 electoral votes, their candidate would still be nine votes short.

These votes would have to come from swing states that had less than a 50 percent vax rate and voted for Biden. They are Arizona (11), Georgia (16), and Michigan (15), any one of which could put the Democrat in the White House.  

Here’s some math.  The Democrats’ 2024 winning formula: 50% vax and loyal/mostly loyal Dems (236) + loyal Dems but less than 50% vax (25) + one of three swing states. This “vax-vote index” suggests the election will be decided by Arizona, Georgia or Michigan.

But Arizona and Georgia are among the GOP-controlled states that have passed voter suppression laws since last year’s election. Given Biden’s narrow win in these states, these actions could tip the balance back to the Republicans.  In contrast, Michigan was close to 50 percent vaccinated and has a Democratic voting tradition.

While the vax-vote index might also influence Senate races, which are statewide like most presidential voting, it would be less influential in House district races.  That’s because of gerrymandering, which has allowed GOP state legislatures to construct districts favorable to their party’s candidates.

GOP efforts at voter suppression supposedly meant to improve ballot security and House redistricting are openly intended to limit Democratic support.  If it gains control of even one house of Congress after 2022, the GOP could restrain Biden. 

Meanwhile, Congress is struggling to pass a bill that would overrule some of the GOP state voter suppression moves. In an almost evenly balanced electorate, the success of either party could settle election outcomes for at least the next few years.

As for getting vaccinated, that’s really a matter of personal choice, not major league politics.  For personal and public health, vaccination is a well-proven, good idea.

American political system threatened by attacks on courts

 

Gordon L. Weil

“Shared values.”  We hear them mentioned by leaders trying to find common ground despite deep political divisions.  It’s a nice thought, but it lacks an explanation of just what those values are.

Of course, everybody reveres the Constitution, though we cannot agree on what many parts of it mean.  The most important message may be that our system of government is valuable, and we should make saving it our highest priority, even if that means sometimes we will be disappointed or even angry with the particular results.

For example, take the supposedly neutral courts, where judges can become the accused. In rendering their rulings, they often come under attack. Three recent court decisions, unpopular with many people, illustrate the ongoing struggle between respecting the system while disliking a decision.

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and now former President Trump’s personal lawyer, took the lead in promoting the story that there had been massive fraud in the 2020 election that, he claimed, Trump had won.

At the White House rally before the January 6 assault on the Capitol, he urged the crowd on and said, “I’m willing to stake my reputation” on there having been criminal vote theft. In the end, he seems to have lost his gamble.

A New York State appeals court suspended his right to practice law, pending a final decision to disbar him.  The court ruled that he “communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large” without any proof of his claims of fraud or ballot tampering.

For the first time, a Trump leader was held responsible for the false claim that Trump had been cheated of an election victory. Defenders promptly appeared.  Trump backed Giuliani and attacked New York and its courts.  A former Harvard Law School professor defended him on the grounds that all lawyers exaggerate. 

In Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court freed Bill Cosby from prison after he had been convicted of sexually assaulting a woman.  The conviction was based almost entirely on his admission of guilt, made only after the district attorney said he lacked sufficient proof and promised Cosby would not be charged.

The DA wanted to strip Cosby of any reason to invoke his constitutional right not to testify against himself.  That way he could be honest, without the risk of going to prison, in the case brought by the woman who sued him.  He admitted his guilt in that case and paid her $3.38 million.

A later DA used his admission against him and had him convicted and sent to prison.  The state Supreme Court said the DA, an official representative of Pennsylvania, could not renege and effectively violate Cosby’s Fifth Amendment right under the Constitution.

Understandably, there was a strong reaction against the court decision. After all, Cosby was guilty. The Court had to withstand tough criticism for making an unpopular decision when it protected a constitutional right.

The U.S. Supreme Court had to face withering criticism for its decision that two changes to Arizona election law were not illegal under the Voting Rights Act.  The Court had voted along conservative-liberal lines in making its 6-3 decision.

Arizona law had been changed to ban people from casting ballots at an incorrect precinct on Election Day and to prevent third parties from collecting voters’ ballots, unless they were family or household members, caregivers or postal workers. 

Those were the issues, and the Court found these changes were non-discriminatory. The dissenters believed that the changes would more heavily affect minority voters

The Court noted that Arizona “makes it very easy to vote.”  Voters can vote by mail or in person up to 27 days before the election and on Election Day in their precinct or at a county voting center.

The U.S. is now experiencing efforts in 18 states to limit voting access, while, with less notice, 28 other states have increased it. The war rages.

A New York Times editorial headlined: “The Supreme Court Abandons Voting Rights.” It demonized the majority justices, saying without support that they “

have given a free pass to state legislatures to discriminate.”

Obviously, the purpose of a court is to determine the law and, also obviously, somebody will dislike any judgment.  But opponents like the Times ignored the majority’s also citing the good Arizona access provisions. If the decision was political, it was mainly so because the opponents said it was.

In all three of these recent cases, courts have made decisions they knew would draw sharp criticism from those who disliked the result.

Clearly, people can disagree with court decisions.  But to attack the courts themselves for those decisions undermines the system of government.  Protecting our system may be more important than any single court case.

Biden, Mills want to hold political center without losing progressives; face tough 2022 elctions

Gordon L. Weil

It may not be obvious to most voters, but we are in the midst of the 2022 political campaign.

We are learning about the politicians’ view of the voters and probably also the voters’ view of themselves.  We may be more conservative than having a Democratic president and governor might imply.

Of course, elections have consequences.  President Joe Biden gets to pick his own federal judges and to reverse by the stroke of a pen some of his predecessor’s orders.  Governor Janet Mills gets solo power to set the terms of Maine’s Covid-19 emergency thanks to Democratic control of the Legislature.

But the election was not a blank check for either of them.  Both have kept an eye on next year’s voting, when Biden would like to score almost unprecedented Democratic congressional mid-term gains and Mills would like to be reelected.

Both face a divided electorate with about half of the voters wary of government and taxes, including many who are right wing on social issues.  Both have to find ways to produce results that can satisfy some center-right voters next year without alienating the growing progressive wing of their party.

Biden knows that Congress could be taken over by the GOP next year.  So he wants key elements of his program passed this year.  While he might be able to ram some of it through Congress with only Democratic votes, that could cost him next year.

That’s why he touts compromise and has been willing to see his infrastructure bill pared down by a bipartisan congressional group.  Even with the deal, he might get a bigger result than Donald Trump had unsuccessfully proposed and it would be all federally financed.

The Republicans’ problem may be Biden’s willingness to compromise and cut deals with conservatives.  GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s sole focus seems to be defeating Democrats and retaking control.  Compromise is not a tasty dish for him.

The proposed infrastructure deal reveals the rift among Republicans.  A few are willing to work on compromises with Biden.  They are similar to traditional Republicans, sometimes more practical than ideological. 

If the GOP deal makers, including Sen. Susan Collins, can find 10 GOP senators to support the compromise and prevent a filibuster, the Republicans launch the start of an open struggle to see if the party can free itself from Trumpism.  That means there’s a lot more at stake in the infrastructure bill than roads and bridges.

On his side, Biden’s compromises run little risk of creating a Democratic split. The progressives won’t like some of his moves, but they surely do not want to see Congress slip back under Republican control.  If that happened next year, they would lose any possible influence on legislation.

Biden is probably counting on their willingness to go along with him in the hope Democrats will pick up congressional seats rather than losing them as would be normal in a mid-term election.  The progressives would then stand a chance of gaining greater influence in the second two years of his term.

The big difference between Biden’s situation and Mills’ is that he is not on the ballot next year and she is.

Mills is undoubtedly more conservative than some legislative Democrats.  In what the Bangor Daily News called her “veto spree,” it reported: "The governor has vetoed seven bills from this legislative session, including several that were priorities for progressive Democrats in the Legislature."

Unlike Biden, the governor does not have the benefit of leaving the progressives nowhere else to go.  She is denied the benefit of ranked choice voting, which could have helped her next year.

RCV came about in Maine after Republican Paul LePage won thanks to a split vote between two Democrats, when one ran as an independent.  But the Maine Constitution prevents RCV, available now in federal elections and party primaries, from being used in a general election for governor.

At a time when Democrats support a referendum on replacing CMP with a consumer-owned utility, Mills is opposed, so she won’t rally full Democratic support.  The fallback would be a petition-driven referendum on the ballot at the same time as her reelection.  The pro-referendum organization already exists.

She faces defections by Democrats or, even worse for her, a Democrat-turned-independent who favors the CMP takeover and splits her vote.  LePage could be the GOP candidate who runs to again take advantage of a Democratic divide.

Both Biden and Mills show the risks faced by Democrats pushed by progressives but facing a significant conservative element in the electorate.  They are now engaged in trying to find their way.

What they do in the next few days and weeks may determine what happens in November 2022.

 

Biden vs. Trump in the Age of Resentment; trying to overcome MAGA with “Build Back Better”

 

Gordon L. Weil

It’s not about Trump.

Joe Biden knows that. So do Joe Manchin and Josh Hawley. 

It’s about people. Donald Trump exploited the discontentment of many Americans for his own political gain.  Even as he fades, the president and the two senators understand those Americans remain the critical center of national politics.

In an essay “The Bitter Heartland,” William Galston wrote about the resentment of people who believe they were gradually ignored by the Democratic Party, which had taken their support for granted. 

They saw the Democratic Party as turning from them and their bread-and-butter issues to focus on other groups who demanded the same rights and social treatment as they had enjoyed.  At first, they became Reagan Democrats, and they would later be Trump’s loyal supporters.

Galston explored the reasons for their resentment. Socially conservative and often religious, they saw the growth of progressive liberalism that could upset the traditional role of the group that had historically dominated – White men.

“Immigrants, minorities, non-Christians, even atheists have taken center stage, forcing them to the margins of American life,” he wrote. They believe liberals want to dictate how they should behave and “hold them in contempt” for their traditions.  They see Democratic liberals upholding a double standard, by only selectively supporting free speech and opposing violence.

Beyond the traditional American way of life being ignored and challenged, they were losing ground in the economy.  The need for labor from assembly line manufacturing to coal mining decreased.  College-educated technocrats deployed automation and artificial intelligence.  New forms of investment created a new wealthy class.

The traditional core voters of the Democratic Party saw their values ignored and the income gap grow between them and those who came to dominate the country, Galston wrote.

Trump sensed the opportunity to take advantage of what might be called “the age of resentment.”  He promised to halt or reverse the trends of recent decades by reviving manufacturing, reducing environmental protection and increasing trade protection.

On the social and legal level, he would stem the movements for greater equality for African-Americans, women, and those seeking sexual freedom.

Even without fully understanding the implications of his promises and actions, those resenting their lost status understood the message. “Make America Great Again” meant a return to the kind of country they had known in the decades before Barack Obama’s presidency.

The 2020 election was a defeat for Donald Trump, but not for the concerns of this core group.  Yet he had become so integral to their resentment, they had difficultly separating the two, even though Republican congressional candidates had run well, despite his loss. 

There have been three reactions to the resulting situation.  The first is the drive to re-install Trump in the White House either by forcefully reversing the election outcome or by the 2024 election.  The election deniers cannot separate their hopes for MAGA from the flawed man who had led their cause.

The second is Trumpism without Trump, perhaps best embodied by Sen. Hawley (R-MO).  Drop Trump and his personal defects but exploit his appeal. At first, that means aligning with the former president and his false election claims.  Then, if he continues to fade, loyalist Hawley or another Republican can pick up the MAGA banner.

President Biden actively pursues the third approach.  He believes the resentful core must be given the skills and opportunity to catch up with change instead of hopelessly resisting it. At the same time, he acts to protect the environment and enhance the rights of those who have been denied.

MAGA means a return to the past.  Biden’s “Build Back Better” means keeping what’s good from the past and improving it.  These are both ways to appeal to those resentful of change.

Biden’s policies require more government action.  It must improve incomes almost immediately, expand education and protect civil and social rights.  At a time when people have been schooled that taxes are bad and government is too big, he must tax more and grow government’s role.

He faces Republicans who have pledged to block him. Some swing Democrats, like Sen. Manchin (D-WV), worry more about MAGA voters than the need for social and economic changes that could parallel those of the New Deal of the 1930s.

Biden seeks results fast.  The key election ahead is not the 2024 presidential contest but next year’s congressional races.  If the Democrats lose their slim majority in Congress, he loses almost any hope for his policies.

To succeed, the Democrats must make gains now among their historic working-class voters while maintaining the momentum of equal rights.  Or, if blocked this year, Biden needs voters next year to reward him for his efforts by giving him a stronger majority.

An historic struggle – between MAGA and Biden’s BBB – is happening now.

 

Race theory, religious school funding now major education battlegrounds

 

Gordon L. Weil

A man tries to wash his hands using an automatic soap dispenser in a public restroom. No soap.

His friend has no trouble getting soap to flow from the same dispenser. It works fine.

What’s going on here?  The first man is Black and the second is White.  The sensor activates the flow of soap by bouncing light off a user’s hands. The Black man’s hands absorb too much light to reflect it back.

Nobody in this story is a racist, yet the Black has a sense of second-rate treatment.  When the faucet was designed and tested, the problem of skin color was overlooked.  Though nobody knows, the designer may have been White.

This story may illustrate the mildest possible expression of critical race theory, which is stirring controversy these days.  Its worst expression may be the George Floyd case, the public murder of a Black man by a White police officer.

Critical race theory has been described as arguing that “racism is rooted in the nation’s founding and that systemic racism continues to affect the way people of color are treated at all levels in society.”

The U.S. Department of Education under the Biden Administration has proposed that some federal aid to education require instruction favorable to this theory.  The proposal has met with strong opposition from some states.

The attorneys general of 20 states have asked the federal government to back off this plan. They claim that the theory “props up an idea based not in fact, but on the idea that the United States is a nation founded on white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression and that these forces are still at the root of our society.”

Some people, mainly Blacks, feel the harm and danger of racism daily and believe others need a better understanding of their lives.  Other people do not consider themselves racists or implicitly to be White supremacists. Those conflicting sentiments set up the issue.

Legislatures in some of the objecting states have moved to block the teaching of this theory in their schools.  The states opposing the proposed requirement are all under Republican control and the issue risks becoming partisan.

It would be difficult to find a more difficult or serious issue in American life.  The Education Department does not profess to be neutral, but would condition the flow of federal funds on the teaching of a disputed interpretation of the facts. 

That is what has made it a political issue. Republicans may see it giving them the opportunity to defend traditional American beliefs, based on a set of values that may be widely admired if not supported by history.  For example, “all men are created equal” did not even legally apply to women and Blacks until long after the Declaration of Independence.

The federal government seeks to influence classroom instruction by requiring what must be taught and some legislatures want to ban a subject from the same classroom.  Both depart from the concept that parents control their children’s educations, within the law, acting through local school boards.

That’s not the only major case of an historic, political battle over what is taught in school.  Another is about religion.

Historically, many public schools included prayer in daily activities.  Public funds for prayer or celebrating Christmas were ruled illegal, violating the ban on government endorsing religion.  Politicians charged there was a “war on Christmas.”

Schools could still teach about religion, including the religious beliefs of the nation’s founders, without teaching religion itself. The Supreme Court decided that public funds for specific purposes should go to all schools, public or religious, though not for religious instruction.

Going further, a federal appeals court last week ruled that Vermont could not deny tuition payments for students in religious schools, which may provide religious instruction.  The result could aid religious schools, allowing them to draw students away from public education.  Maine may face a similar situation.

Using public funds to favor teaching of critical race theory or to support religious instruction places government in a position of great influence over education.  The focus on race and religion may obscure the impact on education.

What’s more, education is increasingly drawn into the current partisan conflict. By seeking to influence teaching about race or religion, the parties may be as concerned about attracting voter support as the quality of education.

Students are at risk. Education is supposed to give them the tools to make their own judgments.  If public policy leads schools to guide their thinking toward conclusions on which wide differences of opinion and belief exist, they may be influenced by whoever controls the government of the day.

Education, funded by the public, should keep the school’s doors open to all ideas and theories, however disputed, without taking sides.

Democrats’ choice: keep campaign promises or keep the filibuster

Gordon L. Weil

The Democrats are afraid.

They hold the presidency and control both houses of Congress. Yet they are afraid.

They fear passing their bills over the objections of united Republicans and exercising what history calls the “Tyranny of the Majority.”

Some voters, including supposed independents, say they favor compromise.  It the parties could agree, the threatened tyranny could be avoided. The federal government could produce broadly accepted policies.

But what if the minority party – right now, it’s the Republicans – chooses not to compromise but insists on opposing.  They may believe they could win the next election by steadfast opposition.  Compromise might help the Democrats, jeopardizing their chances.

Wait a minute.  The minority can simply be voted down if necessary and the Democrats can pass their proposals.  That’s the essence of majority rule in a democracy in which the people elect leaders to carry out their proposed agenda.

But that’s not the real system.  The Senate majority needs 60 senators to end debate on a bill and vote on it.  Forty-one senators can block a bill by a filibuster. No supermajority, no final vote.  The filibuster amounts to “Tyranny of the Minority.”

Some Democrats accept the filibuster, recognizing that someday they will be in the minority and they will want the same protection.  They cling to a weak version of majority control.  They accept minority control of major bills, even if the result can be gridlock, a failure of the political process.

A few members of either party may occasionally break ranks. For example, Sen. Susan Collins and a handful of other Republicans voted to end debate on a bill creating an independent commission to investigate the January 6 Capitol insurrection. By then, the GOP had obtained all of its demands on the bill.

But some GOP senators declared that no matter how satisfactory the bill, they would not support it.  The findings might make their former president and party look bad just before the next congressional elections. They filibustered successfully. Party before principle.

On the other side, at least a couple of Democratic senators promised to block a move to end the supermajority requirement.  They fear offending the Republican voters they need to get re-elected. Party before principle.  Maine’s Angus King is on the fence.

Still, the filibuster is fading. The Senate has eliminated it for judicial and other top level administrative appointments and many spending bills. Each party cut back selectively when it was in control.

Both sides seem to believe that the voters won’t care what they do either way. Congress may be held in low esteem as an institution, but its members keep getting re-elected.

Some senators suggest there’s no need to prevent minority rule, because sometimes compromise happens.  Or a “gang” – a small, bipartisan group often including one or both Maine senators – tries to draft a deal that can gain majority support.  Gang-built bills risk ultimate failure, because they may gain a majority but not 60 votes.

Compromise is impossible on issues like the Capital invasion, where it’s a yes-or-no choice.  And some bills, like voting rights, may be dead on arrival, because there’s no hope of getting to a supermajority vote.

Opinion in the U.S. is now deeply and sharply divided.  Both sides say they want to compromise, but that may mean in practice that the other side has to agree to their position.  That makes supposed bipartisanship a sham, not a joint effort to find a creative way of solving problems.

In the past, each house of Congress passed its own version of a bill and sent it to a formal Conference Committee composed of representatives of both parties from each house.  That meant the majority and minority parties might take part in extended negotiations to produce what would be a new bill.

Because there is no hope for a negotiated bill in a situation in which one party’s core policy is to oppose virtually anything proposed by the other party, the Conference Committee is a politically endangered species.

President Biden seems to get all this.  He pledged to seek compromise with the Republicans.  On the infrastructure bill, he has already cut about $500 billion from his original proposal.  The GOP counterproposal was for even less than former President Trump said was needed, not a basis for a bipartisan deal.

Next year’s campaign may focus on Biden saying, “Well, I tried to compromise, but I was blocked” and the Republicans taunting him with, “He didn’t keep his promise to compromise.” 

Biden tries to take advantage of his party’s control to enact a Democratic agenda on the theory that last year’s elections should have consequences. That may not happen on key bills without the Senate ending minority control. 

The question for the Democrats, who could kill the filibuster, is whether passing the Biden agenda is worth overcoming their fear of using their majority power. 

What ‘Black Lives Matter’ means depends on your politics

Gordon L. Weil

Quiz. The phrase “Black Lives Matter” means;

            (1) Blacks matter more than Whites or, alternatively, only Blacks matter.

            (2) Blacks matter as much as Whites.

            (3) Blacks matter at least somewhat.

It means Option (2) for many who believe that Blacks are entitled to as much respect as Whites, which they have not received, most glaringly at the hands of the police.   The phrase would also have worked as “Black Lives Matters, Too.”

Some are angered that the phrase suggests to them Option (1), that only Blacks matter or they count more than Whites, especially the police who place themselves in danger.  They offer a seemingly fair response that everybody matters equally – “All Lives Matter.”  

That’s what the Declaration of Independence said, though its drafters could not agree on stating, that Blacks matter at all, Option (3).  Later, the Supreme Court decided that Blacks by nature did not matter.

As the result of today’s differing definitions of the phrase, it has become politicized.  At the same time, it has increased sensitivity about how words, even when used without ill intent, may affect listeners or readers.  It’s not so much what you intend as what the listeners think you mean.

The word “woke” has come to mean becoming aware of the need to put an immediate stop to historic discrimination by government and community leaders.  Words from the past, which do not square with this recently expanding awareness, must be rejected.

That a racist or demeaning word was formerly a common expression should not shield its user from criticism. The sin of slavery was understood in 1776, so unrepentant slave owners back then are fair candidates for “woke” attention.

“Woke” has been challenged in the belief that a retroactive judgment is by its nature unfair.  Unless the person should have known they erred at the time, it’s not fair to condemn them now.  The split over the notion of “woke” has become political, if not partisan.

The huge English vocabulary is a further complication.  Increasingly, the absolutely correct choice of words is critical.  Some words may not fade slowly but may quickly disappear, because they cannot be used in any context.

In her excellent book entitled Words Matter, Sally McConnell-Ginet tells the story of an 88-year-old White man who used the word “Negro” in praising a Black baseball star from the past.  He revealed a lack of sensitivity to the audience and had to apologize for using a disappearing word he formerly spoke without hesitation or criticism.

The subtitle of McConnell-Ginet’s book is “Meaning and Power.”  We may pay too little attention to the power politicians give words and language.  Even brutal dictators Hitler and Stalin understood and used that power.

The phrase “Black Lives Matter” has power – for both sides. Those three words not only frame a national debate, they stimulate action.  Similarly, “antifa,” a fabricated word defining an organization that does not exist, is used to counterbalance the extreme right wing, composed of several organizations that do exist.

Words can have enormous power.  Take statements by U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican right-winger.  She insists that the mandate to wear masks for a few months during the Covid-19 pandemic is just like the Holocaust that killed six million Jews.

Her intent is to agitate opponents of wearing masks by making them feel as though they were subject to an historic atrocity.  Not only did she ignorantly and dangerously appropriate somebody else’s history, but she has attempted to arouse civil conflict. All by the use of one word.

The common use of even a single word to send a political message, though much more benign, is illustrated by Maine’s U.S. senators.

Sen. Susan Collins benefits greatly from being called a “moderate.”  While she is less conservative on some issues than many of her fellow Republicans, does her occasional vote against the Republican Party line make her truly moderate or just slightly less extreme?  It may depend on which issues matter most to a voter.

Sen. Angus King is an “independent” because he belongs to no party.  Is he actively independent of the two major parties in the Senate?  While independent Mainers may like his label, he is in fact a member of the Democratic caucus, a practical necessity for his gaining good committee assignments.

The First Amendment protects Americans from government control over our words and what we do with them. Rep. Greene can say what she wants and, outside the limits of public safety, government can’t stop her.

But language belongs to the people, so words gain meaning from how we use them. Words can be powerful, and political leaders use them to be constructive, misleading or dangerous.

An unstated and obviously correct Option (4) for our quiz might be: “Words Matter.”