Why did Trust keep official documents?

Gordon L. Weil

I am biased.  You are biased.

“Everyone is a little bit biased,” says an article published by the American Bar Association.  “A little bit” may understate matters. A recent incident shows how deeply bias can run.

A Little League pitcher’s fastball beaned a batter, who fell to the ground.  For a few minutes, the situation looked serious. But the batter had worn a helmet, so he recovered and took first base. 

The pitcher stood almost motionless with his head down, obviously regretting the errant pitch. Seeing the pitcher’s distress, the batter walked over and gave him a hug and some words of reassurance.  ESPN broadcast this action and drew many strong reactions.

Now for the bias.  Some observers applauded the hitter’s being a good sport and showing his compassion for another kid’s distress.  Others expressed extreme disdain for the batter not having charged the mound to sock the pitcher.  At least he should have done nothing, leaving the rattled pitcher to blow the game.

Some were biased in favor of a player looking out for the welfare of another player.  Others were biased in favor of winning at any cost, which left no room for compassion even in a kid’s ball game.  The fervor revealed something about what divides the country.

Move from that scene to the FBI seizure of government documents in the possession of former President Donald Trump.  

By law, official papers in Trump’s possession should have been in the National Archives but were still held by an ex-president who is now an ordinary citizen. Trump could have thought that his false claim of having won the 2020 election was aided by his holding onto documents only a president should have. 

Some Trump supporters believe that the FBI action was part of an organized plot to harass Trump as he moved toward announcing a 2024 run for the presidency.  They see him charged with technical legal violations by people who disagree with his bold political moves.  That leads them to be biased in his favor.

Others believe that Trump is an arrogant person who saw the presidency as his personal property, giving him the right to do whatever he wanted.  He never had unchecked powers and, as a private citizen, had lost whatever powers he once had.  His opponents are ready to cry, “Lock him up,” showing their bias against him.

This clash of biases is fueled by much of the media that is in business to make money.  Each bias has its own media allies who keep throwing more fuel on the fire as a way of attracting more viewers or readers.

The free expression of these biases is made possible by a virtually unique American law – the First Amendment to the Constitution.  It rules that the government cannot stop a person from saying or writing almost anything.  It’s part of a political system unlike almost any other in the world. 

How can a country function if it is so deeply divided on matters ranging from the powers of the ex-president to kids’ behavior in a baseball playoff game?

The answer is “checks and balances.”  We have been taught that decisions made by the federal government are subject to a complicated system of checks and balances designed to prevent any part of the government from having absolute control.  That’s how democracy works.  It is slow and inefficient, but can keep us safe from rule by a single person.

Checks and balances are really how almost everything works.  While one side wants the Trump investigation halted because it is a “witch hunt,” the other side has already decided the former president has no excuse for breaking the letter of the law.  No checks need be applied.

Here’s what we know free from bias.  Presidents are supposed to turn their government documents over to the National Archives. When Trump left office, some presidential documents went to his Florida home.  He later returned some, but not all, of them even after receiving a subpoena.  The FBI then took more government papers from his home. 

Trump says there was no wrongdoing.  Decisions to be made by the Justice Department, a grand jury, a trial jury, and many appeals judges may be needed to decide if laws were broken and punishment is merited. This time-consuming process is how we protect both individuals charged and the national interest.

Stopping the process anywhere along the way because it is not producing the outcome one wants would reflect bias.  The system is designed to wash out bias as much as humanly possible.

Either the American system will work in its intentionally inefficient way to yield a decision or the built-in bias of one side or the other will ultimately weaken a system on which our country depends. 

'What's the matter with Kansas?' Women's political power grows

 

Gordon L. Weil

“What’s the matter with Kansas?”

After that state’s vote to retain the state constitution’s protection of abortion, many might answer that “nothing’s the matter with Kansas.”

Unless that vote was a fluke, what happened in Kansas has sent a signal about the future of American politics.

The Kansas question was first asked by William Allen White in a classic 1896 editorial.  He criticized the state’s populism and jabbed at men who talked about big public spending, while leaving their wives struggling to find enough money for household expenses.

In 2004, Thomas Frank, a native Kansan, authored a book with the question as its title. He argued that the Republicans who controlled the state had adopted policies harming the average people who loyally elected them.  White’s conservatism had won the day.

Kansas is often considered a “solid red” state, thoroughly conservative and Republican.  Seen that way, the abortion vote was a historic break from what had become the deeply ingrained character of the state.

But that view of Kansas is at least partially wrong and is becoming even more discredited as time passes.  Two things are changing in Kansas that are likely to be occurring all across the country. 

Kansas is becoming more urban, according to the U.S. Census.  We may think of its fields of grain, but services based in cities are gaining. The Democrats are beginning to win in growing Kansas cities and their suburbs, while the Republicans lead in the shrinking rural towns. 

But the pro-choice vote in both the small towns and cities topped the Biden 2020 votes. That may have been caused by the growing power of women in politics. “Solid red” Kansas has a woman serving as governor and in one of its four U.S. House seats.  Both are Democrats. 

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, voter registration shot up in Kansas, where a state referendum meant to undermine the abortion right was scheduled.  The Republican legislature calculated that a low turnout, mostly for GOP primaries, would ensure its passage. 

But turnout was high, reflecting a surge in new registrants.  About 70 percent of the newly enrolled voters were women.  While there’s no way of knowing how they voted, it’s likely they were motivated to register and vote by the need to protect abortion after the Roe reversal.

Nationally, the population mix of the electorate is changing. A lot of attention is focused on Latinos and African Americans. Are Latino voters innately conservative and likely to desert the Democrats?  Faced with voter suppression, will African Americans be discouraged from voting?

One day, a majority of the American electorate will be composed of minorities.  But this preview misses the most obvious group, one that is not a minority – women. Their more active political involvement could have far greater impact than the growth in minority power.

More involvement by women is highly likely to benefit the Democrats.  In 2022, almost a third of state legislators are women and two-thirds of them are Democrats. 

Maine may be a prime example of women in politics. It ranks seventh in percentage of women legislators.  It has a history of women participating and three of its U.S. senators have been women – all Republicans. As urbanization grows in southern Maine, the state seems to lean more to the Democrats.

Some pundits seem blind to the change that is happening.  They criticize the Democrats for abandoning unionized, industrial workers in favor of better educated suburban women. They suggest that the GOP is gaining ground when it picks up blue collar Democrats.

That’s their theory and it is somewhat supported by traditionally Democratic states like Pennsylvania and Michigan having become battlegrounds. And then, along comes Kansas.

It would be easy to write off the vote there as being all about abortion. In fact, the Kansas reaction to the Roe reversal may have revealed what Democratic strategists knew.  The country is changing and they are going where the votes are.

The number of college-educated people has been rising sharply and now represents 41 percent of the population.  Women outnumber men among college graduates and their share of the total keeps increasing. 

Among people 25 and older, there are more women who have finished college than men who have finished high school. And there are fewer union members than college educated women.  

In short, the conventional wisdom about Democratic prospects may be unwise and too conventional.  It explains why the GOP clings to power in the Senate, the last place where rural states can block the federal government.  But the Republicans need to watch out for Kansas.

The vote there suggests that something more than the abortion issue was at play.  A combination of more, better educated women and urban growth are the biggest engines of political change.

Maine’s rare election could have national impact

Gordon L. Weil

Maine will hold one of the most unusual elections ever. A sitting governor will face the governor who she succeeded. It’s even more unusual because the incumbent is a woman.

That is a rare event across the country and in U.S. history, though it has happened previously in Maine. But, beyond its rarity, it potentially has national significance.

The country is deeply divided between the conservative Republican Party reshaped by former president Trump and the Democratic Party with its big tent covering partisans from left to right. This split produces stalemate.

While much attention is focused on congressional elections, where the outcome may be a verdict on the Biden presidency, a better reading of the national political balance may be in races for governor, including Maine’s.

The election of a governor allows voters to choose who leads a government that has a direct effect on them. That differs from a federal election in which the winner will at best be a part of the Washington system that struggles to create policy. And, unlike votes for federal offices, each voter has exactly the same influence in the governor’s election.

Maine Governor Janet Mills, a moderate-right Democrat, faces former governor Paul LePage who has styled himself as a Trump Republican. Although they have never before faced one another in an election, they battled when Mills served as Attorney-General during LePage’s time in office.

Mills has the advantage in being the incumbent in a state where voters often give governors a second term. But as presidential elections have shown, the state is closely divided along partisan lines. LePage's ties to Trump would make an upset win by him into national news. If the state swings, much may be read into the result as a sign of Trump’s continuing influence.

Several other states, though none with a two-governor race, may also send a signal on the direction the country is headed. If they should all move in the same direction, it would be a powerful signal.

The political signs are that Georgia is becoming a swing state. Amazingly for the Deep South, it now has two Democratic U.S. senators. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp is a Trump Republican hated by Trump, because he did not throw the 2020 presidential election to him. Georgia voters seem ready to move beyond Trump, but not necessarily beyond conservatism.

Kemp will face Democrat Stacey Abrams, whom he narrowly defeated four years ago. She was a key architect of the 2020 Democratic wins in Georgia and is a national level political figure. She offers a clear choice on issues, but perhaps more importantly, she is among the most skillful politicians in her party and can get out her vote.

Abrams may benefit from a political shift that could send a broader message. There has been an influx of people from outside the South into the Atlanta area. Just as Maine could become more Democratic thanks to new arrivals, the Atlanta region is becoming more Democratic. Georgia’s results could reveal the coming crumbling of the Solid South.

Texas and Wisconsin could provide readings about the national split, and the effect of Republican efforts to make voting more difficult for traditional Democratic voters may be a major factor. If the GOP is successful, it could reveal they can hold onto control in many states even when in the minority, though it is not an issue in Maine.

In Texas, GOP Gov. Greg Abbott is an absolute Trump loyalist and an active promoter of voter suppression. He faces Beto O’Rourke, a former member of Congress who ran well against Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018. O’Rourke may have a tough time winning, but even a close finish could put Texas into the toss-up category for the 2024 presidential election.

Wisconsin may be the state making the greatest efforts to keep people from voting, and there are even questions about its vote counting. The Democratic governor will face a Trump Republican. As much as the partisan test, the election will show if voter suppression has taken hold, which could affect the 2024 presidential race in a key state.

The Nevada race shapes up as a test for the Trump forces. His candidate faces a moderate Democratic incumbent. If Trump Republicans want to show they are gaining, this is perhaps their best chance. A Democratic reversal here would send the similar message to a Mills’ loss in Maine.

Elections for the U.S. House and Senate could determine if Biden will be able to accomplish much in the next two years. This is likely critical for the Democratic platform, because the 2024 elections could be for an open seat for president.

But on the broader question of the national political balance and how it will tilt in the future, it’s the governors’ races that may provide the answer.

State abortion bans probably neither legal nor possible

 

Gordon L. Weil

After the Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade, some states are trying to ensure that women will be unable to get around the decision.

They seek to prevent women from obtaining “medication abortion” by mail and punish them if they travel out of state to obtain an abortion. But states may be thwarted in their anti-abortion efforts and the most effective method may come from an almost forgotten document.

The “Articles of Confederation” was the governing document of the United States before the Constitution. Some of its terms are still in effect and could overrule state anti-abortion moves.

We are usually taught that the Constitution completely replaced the Articles of Confederation. But an historic opinion that the Articles survive came from one of the most famous lawyers in American history.

The Illinois lawyer who reached that conclusion was Abraham Lincoln who confirmed this position on the day he became president. He said states could not secede, because the Articles created a “perpetual” union and that decision remained in effect.

One other bit of proof of their validity is the name of the country. The Articles officially named the country the “United States of America” and it is the legal authority for the name.

The Articles of Confederation provide that the national government has “the sole and exclusive right and power of ... establishing and regulating post-offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States....” This power is carried over in the Constitution. (It does not ban competing courier services like UPS and Fedex.)

Postal service was key to binding the 13 original colonies together. Even before the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as Postmaster General. He promptly created a national post road running from Falmouth, Massachusetts (now Portland, Maine) to Savannah, Georgia. U.S. Route 1.

By the time Lincoln was inaugurated, seven states had seceded from the Union. Because of the essential unifying role of mail, he sought tto keep the postal system running in those states. They refused.

Even before the Court’s Roe repeal, more than half of the estimated 930,000 abortions in the U.S. in 2020 were by taking medication, some probably obtained by mail.

The postal service is under the exclusive control of the federal government. A state cannot block ordinary personal mail simply because it may not like its contents. Action by a state to ban mail containing medication for private use could be overruled under “the exclusive right and power” of the United States.

Most people make regular use of the mail confident that their state cannot open the envelope or block its delivery. In addition to interstate mail, there is now a federal rule allowing individuals to import medications by mail from outside of the country.

Some states are reportedly considering moves to make illegal travel by their residents to other states to obtain abortions. They could be penalized when they return home.

The Articles provide that “inhabitants of each of these States ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free [sic] citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State ....” The second of these rights is found in the Articles, not in the Constitution.

Since the founding of the country, Americans have had freedom of movement from state to state. They probably have no idea where the right appears.

Before the abolition of slavery under the Constitution, the Articles allowed a person owning slaves in one state to travel to a state that banned slavery without risking of punishment there.

Today, a person could obtain an abortion in a state where it is lawful and then go to any other state, including returning to their home state even if it banned abortions. If you obey the abortion laws of a state, you may freely travel to another state, even if it bans abortions in its borders, without any risk of punishment.

These Articles should warm the heart of any judges who consider themselves to be “originalists.”

History reveals yet another reason that state anti-abortion actions won’t work. The Constitution was amended to ban alcoholic beverages, but that amendment could not be effectively enforced against individuals and it was soon repealed. Similarly, a ban on mailing medications in plain wrappers or traveling for an abortion could not be easily enforced.

Prohibition demonstrated how difficult it is to legislate personal morality and private behavior. More recently, a million Americans have died from Covid-19, many resisting government advice on vaccination or masking orders. Such government action cannot readily be enforced.

In the end, absolutely banning abortion is probably neither legal nor possible. But trying to do that is certainly political.

U.S. struggles between idealism and realism: Biden's Middle East trip

Gordon L. Weil

Here’s today’s quiz.

Name the country. It is ruled by one man. It bombs people in a neighboring country. It assassinates its opponents even if they are in other countries. It is a major oil producer.

The country is (a) Russia or (b) Saudi Arabia.

The correct answer is both. They violate American values, proclaimed as the foundation of U.S. policy. But we oppose one and support the other because it suits our interests.

The hard truth is that the national interest at any moment can get priority over national values.

To some critics, the U.S. should oppose both regimes. Russia seeks to replace Ukraine’s democracy with its own rule. Saudi Arabia violated human rights in the bloody murder of Jamal Khashoggi, an outspoken opponent.

The U.S. worries that the Saudis will come under the influence of Russia or China, America’s world rivals, or of both. That’s one reason why President Biden just visited Saudi Arabia, a country he had earlier condemned for the Khashoggi killing.

Besides, while Russia builds links with Iran, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia share deep concerns about that country’s nuclear weapons development. On his trip, Biden was applying that old adage: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

That can mean that yesterday’s human rights sins are ignored today. Doing that can be walking a difficult tightrope for an American president.

The situation recalls a comment by Everett Dirksen, a late GOP Senate leader. His remark has come down to us as, “I am a man of principle, and one of my basic principles is flexibility.” That sounds like the rule Biden applied in meeting the Saudi Prince cited by U.S. intelligence to be behind Khashoggi’s murder.

The choice between idealism that reflects traditional national values and realism that does what’s necessary to meet current national interests has existed throughout American history. More than most countries, the choice either way has major effects.

That’s because the American ideals give the country a special place in history. The first modern democracy, the U.S. serves as a model for other countries striving to create governments under popular control. The American Bill of Rights sets goals for other countries to try to reach.

This special character of the U.S. has been the hallmark of American influence and leadership in the world. While people abroad may grumble at American economic power, many respect the values that the U.S. tries to promote in the world.

Current goals and changing national politics may require the U.S. to compromise its commitment to traditional values. Going too far, as Biden may have, might lead to political controversy, rash mistakes and harm to America’s leadership role in the world.

What might have Biden done differently to better project U.S. values, while still advancing American interests?

1. He could have held an unannounced, pre-meeting Zoom call to remind Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman of the American view of his involvement in Khashoggi’s killing rather than looking like he was hounded into raising the matter by the time they met. He could then have revealed that call on the eve of the meeting, looking both more sincere and better focused on the business at hand.

2. He would have met the prince in a neutral location instead of appearing to seek his help on the Saudi’s turf. That could avoid looking like the U.S. appeases Saudi Arabia.

3. He would have had a working meeting in Israel instead wasting time at the formula arrival scene that was promptly compared unfavorably with Trump’s treatment by his Israeli cronies. That could avoid looking like the U.S. appeases Israel.

4. He could have told the Palestinians that the U.S. favors a two-state solution, but they need to find unity themselves or they’ll melt into history. U.S. aid would be tied to an election timetable, because democracy is a key value for us.

Too often the choice between values and interests may seem like an either-or proposition. The U.S. risks allowing its policy objectives to obscure its values as it seeks to curry favor with other countries. The U.S. may compromise too readily and seem to act as if our dependence on them is greater than their reliance on American power and markets.

Perhaps the president who seemed best to understand the need for balance was George Washington. He was neither a schemer nor a dreamer. He is remembered as a practical president. He dealt firmly with Britain, the former colonial master, and with France, the former ally, always defending America’s hard-won values.

Even better, he was open about his reasoning and his aims and willing to accept bitter criticism rather than trying to please everybody. His obvious self-confidence as an American who was both principled and practical in safeguarding values and advancing the national interest itself enhanced America’s standing.

A president sets the IRS on his ‘enemies’ – my story; while McGovern urged America to ‘come home’

(You can also read on Substack free.)

Gordon L. Weil

This column is personal.

This month marks the 50th anniversary of Sen. George McGovern’s run for president as the Democratic candidate. I was his “body man,” almost always with the candidate and serving as his point of contact with others. I traveled around the world with him.

This year also marks the anniversary of my being placed on President Richard Nixon’s so-called “Enemies List” of people who opposed his re-election. His aides sent the list to the IRS so that we could be harassed by audits, possibly revealed as cheats and put at risk of punishment.

The McGovern campaign was mostly about ending the Vietnam War, which divided the country and produced deadly confrontation. We made some major mistakes, and McGovern lost badly. The war continued three more years and did lasting damage to the country.

The Enemies List, like the Nixon campaign’s break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s Watergate headquarters, blew up on the president. The IRS refused to audit the enemies. The Watergate scandal and attempted cover-up forced Nixon to resign when he was faced with the certainty of being impeached and convicted.

Both McGovern’s patriotic and hopeful candidacy and Nixon’s unlawful and destructive response still echo, though somewhat hollowly, down the decades.

The theme of McGovern’s candidacy was “Come Home, America.” In accepting the Democratic nomination, he urged, “Come home to the affirmation that we have a dream. Come home to the conviction that we can move our country forward.”

McGovern believed that Americans have a shared dream. No matter their differences on government's role in realizing the Nation's common aspirations, all Americans agree on striving to live in a society “with liberty and justice for all.”

For him and his supporters, the Vietnam War in which tens of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese would die was moving the country away from that shared dream. Fighting North Vietnam could stop the spread of Communism, his opponents said. We cannot win that war on Asian battlefields, he said.

In the end, North Vietnam prevailed. Communism did not spread from that country. Now the U.S. wants to boost trade with Vietnam. Yet, despite the changed U.S. policy toward Vietnam, McGovern’s call for the country to come home still goes unheeded with the U.S. even more divided.

Perhaps the saddest part of the legacy of that long-ago campaign is that America did not come home. It left home.

Even at the moment of McGovern's most bitter attack on the Vietnam War, senators on the other side respected him. He was a decorated World War II bomber pilot and had earned the right to oppose an American war.

Such respect barely exists in the country that Trump has tried to shape. His loyalists, people who enjoy his enthusiastic endorsements, know no limits on their attacks and outright hatred of those who have a different view of the role of government. They lean toward authoritarian rule, the exact opposite of the original American dream.

In many states, Trump’s Republicans try to make it more difficult for people to vote. The GOP exploits the broadly stated principles of the Constitution to ensure that a minority party can hold onto power by any means possible.

McGovern, the son of a Methodist minister, did not favor aligning the political system with a single set of religious beliefs. That would be contrary to the expressed view of the Nation’s Founders. But in many places, starting at the Supreme Court, that’s what’s happening.

The partisan divide permeates public debate. Perhaps trying to appear to be fair, the New York Times naively revealed it was statistically possible for the IRS to randomly select for deep scrutiny the tax returns of two former FBI directors that Trump had labeled as criminals. The newspaper looked more gullible than fair.

Can any rational person believe there was no politics, just statistical chance, when Trump's enemies were subject to rare IRS audits? I can't.

When my time came to be audited, somebody decided the White House request went too far, that it violated American values. Was there anybody of conscience left when the supposedly random audits of the FBI leaders came up?

The Democrats spout pious reminders of the need for Americans to honor their shared values. Where are those values when a president cheers on an insurrection at the Capitol, fails to condemn threats to the life of his vice president and, in my view, sets the IRS on his designated enemies?

If America should come home, what does our home look like? Finding the will of the people on that question is the biggest issue.

Checks and balances fail; Senate commits suicide by filibuster, leaving Court the lawmaker

 

Gordon L. Weil

Checks and balances have failed. 

A key element of American government, the idea came from John Locke, a 17^th Century Englishman.  Almost unknown today, he was once seen as one of the greatest men in history. 

Locke thought there could be no neutral judge, so a system was needed to ensure that the government could not override the “social contract” that made possible government of, by and for the people.  The Supreme Court has just proved that there is no neutral judge.

From Locke’s thought came the interlocking powers of the president, Congress and the Supreme Court.  Now, the Court, supposedly the weakest branch, is the strongest and Congress, the branch meant to be the strongest, is the weakest. 

The failure of Congress to make the laws is the result of the Senate’s suicide by filibuster.

Three recent Supreme Court decisions show the result.  In the absence of a law on abortion, the Court found no constitutional right for it.  It decided that a state could not prevent a person from openly carrying a gun.  And it ruled that Congress had not given the executive branch extensive powers to regulate air quality.

The Court managed to make a lot of Americans unhappy.  Its  decisions probably offended the beliefs and expectations of a majority of people.

The reason those decisions displeased so many people is that they overruled decades of experience that had become part of the fabric of the country.  A minority that had opposed them as those rights and practices had evolved now dominated the Court and had gained the power to reverse them.

The biggest threat in these recent decisions came in Justice Clarence Thomas’s Roe v. Wade opinion. He urged the Court to reconsider whether the Fourteenth Amendment promise of “equal protection” should extend to individual rights other than those in the Bill of Rights.  He seemed to have the agreement of three other justices.

The Constitution recognizes that people have rights protected beyond those in the Bill of Rights.  The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted for over a century to protect such rights.  Of course, they must be identified. The right to privacy is one.  The right to govern your own body has been another.

Does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the unchecked power to decide what laws are allowed and what rights should be protected?  No. The Court’s powers may be exercised “with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

In fact, Congress has limited the scope of Supreme Court decisions.  And the authority to be the last word on whether a law fits the Constitution was given to the Court by the Court itself in 1803. That’s not in the Constitution.

Suppose Congress voted to take that power away from the Supreme Court.  Under its own view, the Court might determine that decision itself was not allowed by the Constitution.  What then could Congress do?

It could enlarge the Court to include enough justices to block or reverse such a decision.  It can do that by a simple majority vote and with the agreement of the president.  But layers of court packing could lead to constitutional chaos.

There is another solution that I have long advocated.  Though federal judges have lifetime appointments under the Constitution, making term limits impossible, Congress has historically authorized temporary federal judges.  It could do so now.

They increase the size of a federal court and can then automatically take vacant seats created when other judges leave the bench.  The court can gradually return to its original size.

Why doesn’t this happen in response to the latest Supreme Court decisions?  Where are the checks and balances on the Court or has it made itself the last word?

Congress  hasn’t acted because the Senate has let 41 senators representing less than 20 percent of the population to use the filibuster to block votes.  That’s not in the Constitution.  There’s now no filibuster on appointments to the Supreme Court, which explains the current conservative composition of the body, created by a simple GOP majority.

The filibuster protects either party from finding itself in the minority and being run over.  A party believes it needs that protection against major political change.  Did that work?  By these three major decisions the Democrats were run over.

The responsibility for the failure of checks and balances lies with the Senate.  Senators King and Collins are among those who fear the worst if the filibuster ends.  They cede the unelected Supremes their role as American legislators.

Justice Thomas wants the law to return to how it was before women and African-Americans had the right to vote.  He has issued fair warning and needs only one more judicial ally.

It’s time for Congress to end the filibuster and take back lawmaking.

An American In Name Only? Trump broke with ten previous presidents

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, but he reacted completely differently than the ten previous presidents who had also failed in their bids to remain in office.

Ronald Reagan, in his 1981 inauguration speech, declared, “The orderly transfer of authority ... is nothing less than a miracle.”  Jimmy Carter, the president he defeated, sat beside him.

For Trump, Reagan’s “miracle” was merely a mirage. Instead of turning the White House over to his successor and assisting in an orderly transfer as Carter had, Trump attacked the election itself.

Now, the House of Representatives is holding hearings on Trump’s efforts to keep the presidency, winding up with the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol.

The American tradition of an orderly transfer originated in 1800, after the fourth presidential election when President John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson.  Adams became the first incumbent to be denied re-election.  Like Trump, he had been soundly defeated and strongly disliked his opponent, seeing him as a danger to the young republic.

But Adams accepted the result.  Jefferson did not destroy America, and the two rivals eventually became friends.  They died on the same day, the Fourth of July marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

The other sitting presidents before Trump who lost were John Quincy Adams (John’s son, in 1828), Martin Van Buren (1840), Grover Cleveland (1888), Benjamin Harrison (1892), William H. Taft (1912), Herbert Hoover (1932), Gerald Ford (1976), Jimmy Carter (1980), and George H.W. Bush (1992).

In 1888, Cleveland won a popular majority but lost the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison.  Both sides claimed there had been open vote buying.  Cleveland accepted his loss and in the next election again won the presidency.  Trump, who lost the popular vote both times he ran, now dreams of pulling off the same comeback.

Two presidential elections that raised doubts about the result involved two incumbent vice presidents: Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in 2000.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy won thanks to carrying Illinois and Texas by narrow margins.  The Republican Party claimed fraud in both states, but lacked sufficient evidence.  Nixon promptly accepted his loss. 

In 2000, the election was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court voting 5-4 to halt the contested Florida ballot count, thus handing the election to George W. Bush.  Gore, after a few legal skirmishes, graciously conceded and the country moved on. 

Both Nixon and Gore presided in Congress over the official vote counts of their own defeats.  Nixon spoke, praising the peaceful turnover.  Gore rejected a formal challenge to the Florida result.  In 2021, Vice President Mike Pence would carry out the same constitutional duty.

It seemed logical to Trump and his supporters that he had won, because he received more popular votes than anybody who had ever run for president – except for Joe Biden.  Biden must have cheated, he charged. But he could not produce any evidence, relying instead on unsupported claims and outright fantasies conjured up by some of his backers.

Trump’s campaign obtained independent vote counts that did not change the result.  It brought scores of legal challenges, but consistently lost in court.  Though his claims were completely disproved, he kept pushing them. False claims became real lies. 

Ignoring the conclusions of the Attorney-General he had appointed, he unsuccessfully pressed the Justice Department to aid his claims.  He brought continuous public pressure on Pence to violate the law and throw out election results.  

As each step failed, Trump moved closer to his final, desperate move – sending his backers to the Capitol to threaten Pence’s life and reverse his defeat by force.

Unlike any other president, Trump had used the prestige of his office to press state and federal officials to support his claims. But they refused, becoming the unlikely heroes of the House hearings.  Most are members of his party, though he often labels them RINOs – Republicans In Name Only.

Trump broke with the traditional limits on how far a presidential loser should reasonably go before accepting his defeat. Did his rejection of the American political tradition mean that Trump is an American In Name Only?

The system allowed Trump to challenge the result. That he used every lawful opportunity did not make him less American. Lacking real evidence, he exhausted all legal methods to prove his case.  But he will not concede.  Instead, he persists in misleading millions of his supporters, deepening political conflict.

Trump’s knowingly false claims of fraud and his instigation of insurrection go beyond the safeguards of the American political tradition.

Committees and courts may assign responsibility.  But “we, the people” must ultimately decide if partisan or personal victory is ever again worth a mortal threat to America’s time-tested political tradition. 

Happy Fourth. 

Conventional wisdom wrongly blames Biden for inflation

Gordon L. Weil

Here’s some “conventional wisdom.”

It goes like this. High gasoline prices are the main cause of inflation. Inflation is President Biden’s fault, making him really unpopular. So the Democrats will lose control of Congress in this year’s elections.

That thinking is more wrong than right, but it may well produce the predicted political outcome. A lot of people believe it.

Anything right about it? The price of gasoline is much higher than usual, and it has increased at dizzying speed. In a country where SUVs have displaced sedans, that can hit your wallet hard. Somebody has to be held responsible for allowing the price run-up.

Because presidents tend to take credit for the economy when times are good, it’s natural they will get the blame when good times stop rolling. That leads to a demand for new leadership, which would mean turning the control of Congress over to the Republicans.

What Biden did wrong, according to his opponents, was to promote displacing oil with green resources. The oil companies cut back on production as they saw the rise of electric cars.

The world market price increased when the Middle East tried to keep up its income as demand fell. The U.S. oil industry saw a chance to boost its profits by riding that wave rather than displacing competitors by selling more oil at a lower price. As one industry analyst put it: “Returns have taken priority over growth.”

The economy grew as Covid-19’s impact began to be controlled, requiring more fuel. But oil production lagged, yielding higher prices and oil company windfall profits.

Then came the Ukraine war and the West’s effort to punish Russia’s aggression by buying much less of its oil and gas. That drove up oil prices. Biden seemed to acknowledge the critics of his pro-renewables policy by asking the oil companies to step up production and drilling.

But he also took steps to reduce costs. He ordered oil drawn from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He has now proposed that Congress should temporarily suspend the gasoline and diesel tax.

Did Biden create inflation by pushing huge federal spending and increasing the national debt?

Two-thirds of the massive Covid-19 impact and stimulus spending was adopted before he came to office and was backed by both parties. It may have been more than needed and badly controlled. It gave people more money to spend, boosting inflation and savings, and now supports increased state government outlays. Much of it remains to be spent.

As Congress and the president poured funds into the economy, the Federal Reserve seemed not to take notice. It kept interest rates at historically low levels, almost zero, instead of recognizing the economy was recovering.

Now, with inflation taking off, the Fed is raising interest rates to make purchasing more expensive. That process works, but painfully. Meanwhile the rate increases appear to push inflation before slowing it. If the Fed’s effort to catch up works too well, the economy may not only cool off but go into reverse – a recession.

Nobody likes economic uncertainty, but that’s what is happening at an extreme level. After more than two years of fighting Covid-19, the virus does not seem to be running out of variants that produce waves of cases. Activities from international trade to travel to office work are affected.

China is battling Covid-19 with measures that can shut down parts of its economy. That drives up the cost of its exports to the U.S. Supply chains have been disrupted, which also results in higher retail prices. Plus a federal law blocking imports of low-cost goods produced in China by Uyghur forced labor just went into effect.

Add to this economic turmoil the proxy war between NATO and Russia on the battlefields of Ukraine. With much at stake in the world’s balance of power, this war might continue for months or even years. Like any major war, it impacts national economies.

Covid-19 plus a tougher attitude toward China and Russia are transforming the world’s economy and having a far greater effect than short-term inflation. There’s no chance that inflation will be tamed and all will return to normal. In the U.S., pay levels and prices have changed for good.

Biden bears some responsibility, of course, and he may pay politically if the prices of gasoline, diesel and heating oil remain high. But inflation’s origins pre-date his administration and the causes are more complex than those he can influence. He is not the main force behind inflation.

Conventional wisdom suffers from such short-sighted tunnel vision. As a result, we cannot readily see the light at the end of the tunnel.

This “wisdom” may prevail when people vote, but inflation and other economic challenges cannot be brought under control simply by the outcome of the November elections.

Do we want strong leaders more than popular control?

 

Gordon L. Weil

What does a loose-lipped congressional candidate in Buffalo have in common with some witnesses in the January 6, 2021 insurrection hearings?

They believe people want to follow strong political leaders.

Carl Paladino, who is seeking the Republican nomination for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, recently said that Adolf Hitler was “the kind of leader we need today.” He continued, “We need somebody inspirational. We need somebody that is a doer.”

While Paladino did not mention just what that particular “doer” did, he liked to way the Nazi Fuhrer “aroused the crowd.” The despicable substance of his arousing speeches meant nothing compared the way he got people to follow him. (Forget the Gestapo.)

During the House January 6 hearings one participant said that he was at the Capitol because former President Trump asked him to be there. Why he would readily do Trump’s bidding?

It is easy for some in the media to assume that Trump simply brought the racists out of the closet. That may be true but it’s far from the whole answer.

Paladino implied that people respond to bold, assertive, self-confident leadership for its own sake. It may not matter where the speakers want to lead people, just that they appear to take charge. Maybe that explains why the man went to Washington to attack the Capitol.

That may also explain why President Biden has become less popular than Trump was at the same point in his presidency. Biden is affable, but not a crowd-pleasing orator who can express his policies in simple slogans.

One of the marks of leadership is the ability to directly motivate others. Leadership is a learned skill, so it’s not surprising that 12 of our 46 presidents had previously served as generals. Among the most historic were professionals like Washington, Jackson, Grant and Eisenhower. Others in lower ranks, like Truman and Kennedy, had led in combat.

The U.S. was created as a republic, a representative democracy where leadership matters rather than a direct democracy where the people rule. It’s the difference between the representative town council and the direct democratic decision making of the town meeting.

In either case, the people are the sovereign, not a monarch or a dictator. As the U.S. evolved, its original republican institutions became more democratic. That is evidenced by adopting the popular election of the Senate, referendums, people’s vetoes and recall elections.

American presidents, including those with military experience, have supported democracy, even if the system blocked some of their policies. Undoubtedly one-person government might be more efficient than the intentionally more complicated and slower moving democratic system.

Autocratic leaders often argue that the democratic system is ineffective and seek authoritarian rule. Hitler took power through a democratic vote and then promptly replaced popular control with his brutally efficient regime.

If a person values efficiency above democracy, the strong, unchecked leader is popular. That’s especially true if you agree with their policies. The risk is that they will later adopt policies you dislike and you will be helpless to oppose them. What’s tempting today may be terrifying tomorrow.

Today American politics are carried out through the Republican and Democratic Parties. Though their names might imply a difference in how the country should be governed, the two major parties have historically shared a common view of how this democratic republic would operate.

But a divide has begun to emerge between them with some Republicans believing that their party should reverse the trend toward greater democracy. Voter suppression and misusing Senate voting practices have become part of the GOP agenda.

Republicans have easily slid into calling the other party the “Democrat Party” and not by its legal name – the Democratic Party. Originally, this ploy was meant only to annoy, but increasingly it has become a slur, conveying something sinister about the party.

Republicans may imply that its competitor is no longer democratic but has fallen into the hands of its extreme left wing. The Democratic Party has traditionally had a bigger tent than the GOP and that produces enough of a variety that there’s always an office holder whose patriotism can be questioned by a Republican.

Does that kind of politics go so far as to question whether representative democracy has outlived its usefulness or proven unable to meet modern needs? Elitist republic yes, popular democracy no?

This is more than a political word game played by some in the GOP. Favoring “inspirational” leaders tends to undermine our innovative system of democratic government and pave the way to more authoritarian rule. Perhaps that’s what’s intended.

We need to understand that political division is now more than a disagreement on issues. It’s about the system itself. Paladino’s views and fostering the follow-the-leader mentality of the January 6 Capitol invaders are dangerous to the American democratic republic.

Maine reflects national economic change; results in population growth

 

Gordon L. Weil

KPOOM.

In the 1970s, that was a popular Maine bumper sticker. It meant “Keep People Out Of Maine.”

A drastic slowdown in the state’s population growth took place in following decades. In 2020, the trend reversed. This could be part of an historic national economic transformation.

The population grew in the 70s by an annual average of 1.27 percent, more than most states in the Northeast. Some Mainers worried about changes that might come with the influx of people “from away.”

Without any formal action to discourage growth, the rate dropped. By the 2010-2019 decade it had fallen to a 0.12 percent annual increase, not even one-tenth of the earlier period. The share of the state’s population born in Maine was also declining.

The recent turnaround has been abrupt and sharp. It could change Maine and its economy.

While there is no formal analysis of the shift, it is worth considering four factors: climate warming, Covid-19, mass electronics and evolving values. Maine may provide clues to demographic change across the country.

Judging from the results on search engines, people are increasingly interested in finding the best places to live as the climate changes. They are seeking places where the impact of warming will be limited and perhaps where it will produce benefits.

Unless you really liked winter decades ago, Maine was not where you would move. Mid-winter temperatures were often below zero. But now, in many places, that’s a rarity.

Let’s take January 31, usually a day in the coldest week of the year, in 1970 and the same date in 2020, a half-century later. The average 2020 temperatures in Bangor and Portland were each about 10 degrees warmer than in 1970. Forget about zero; in Portland it was 30, just two degrees below freezing.

Studies forecast that among the best places to live in the U.S. as the planet warms is going to be the Northeast. That produces a favorable rating for Maine, making it less challenging for people who dislike seriously cold weather.

Covid-19 made working remotely a necessity for some who found it yielded a surprisingly attractive lifestyle. If you don’t have to be in the office, the common workplace in a service economy, it may not matter where you live. As the lockdowns extended, for some people working at home became a desirable part of the “new normal.”

The increased speed and capacity of electronic communications and data transfers are key to the ability to work remotely. Government has increasingly focused on assisting the rapid increase of broadband for the broad population.

Not only does that encourage people to think about moving to places offering lifestyle advantages especially for families, but it opens new locations for employers. They don’t have to set up where the workers are located; the workers may come to them electronically.

Finally, Mainers themselves may be changing. A newly published novel, “The Midcoast” by Adam White, takes Damariscotta as an example. The town goes mainstream, to “trade ‘authenticity’ for what feels like an airbrushed portrait of itself,” White writes. Maine itself becomes increasingly as if “from away,” part of a culturally homogenized country.

Each year, United Van Lines, a major national moving company, conducts a survey of who’s moving (not only their customers) and why. Its latest study revealed that in 2021, Maine became a leading state for in-migration. Last year, 58 percent of all moves were inbound and only 42 percent outbound.

Who’s coming? Retirees and people seeking a new lifestyle and new jobs. They are mainly 45-54 years old with incomes of $100,000 or more. Who’s leaving? Those who move for family reasons and retirees. They are 65 and older with incomes below $100,000.

The state leading in supply of new Mainers is Massachusetts, while the leading destination is Florida.

Won’t Maine’s high cost of living including taxes prevent a real turnaround? The cost difference with other states is largely a myth, because sellers take market conditions into account when they price their products. These days, gasoline costs a bit lower in Maine than in Boston.

Maine’s cost of living was found to be a plus rather than a negative for movers, despite the state having higher taxes than Northeast competitors and Florida. Movers may consider taxes as part of the overall cost of living. And more higher income residents could boost tax revenues, removing the need for future tax increases.

The bottom line, if one is already emerging, is that Maine is changing and it may reflect broader national trends. The nature of the American economy may be transformed by the warming climate and the effects of Covid-19 plus the wider spread of advanced communications and technology.

The result for Maine may be increased population and prosperity, but at some cost to its unique personality.

Gun control: common good vs. individual rights

 

NOTE TO READERS. THIS COLUMN IS AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE ON SUBSTACK.  PLEASE SUBSCRIBE THERE.  IF YOU CANNOT SUBSCRIBE, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT.

Gordon L. Weil

“What are we doing?”

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, repeatedly and emotionally asked a nearly empty Senate chamber.

His impassioned speech expressed his sorrowful and angry reaction to the usual lack of government action on gun control after mass shootings like the one in Uvalde, Texas.

But the message of his speech asked questions that go far beyond gun control and reach the inability of the government to function.

The gun debate raises the broader question now dividing American politics. What is the proper role of government?

“The best government is that which governs least.” These words, written by political activist and editor John O’Sullivan, appeared in 1837.

O’Sullivan asserted: “A strong and active democratic government, in the common sense of the term, is an evil, differing only in degree and mode of operation, and not in nature, from a strong despotism.” However, he admitted that the despot and the democrat had far different goals.

Fighting measures from Social Security to Medicare to gun control is part of the GOP’s hallmark opposition to “big government” and its advocacy of the government which governs least.

To strike a contrast with their opponents, GOP leaders label Democrats as “socialists,” a word readily bringing to mind the Communists who call themselves Socialists.

The core issue is government’s role in meeting common needs that cannot be achieved through individual action, which is hardly socialism. Government by the people means that individuals cede some of their individual freedom to undertake joint action to meet agreed common purposes.

The Second Amendment has been interpreted to mean that individuals have the right to own and use guns. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that conditions could be placed on that right. Protecting the right to armed self-defense from government action could still allow the government to limit the use of that right.

But the decision did not settle the question, because some people accepted the affirmation of their right, while rejecting any conditions on it. Unlike any other right protected from government action, gun rights are unconditional, they maintain. Government should not merely “govern least,” but not govern at all.

Every crisis, whether it is the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Uvalde shootings, grabs congressional attention. The question instantly arises if the American government should take any action to meet the crisis, perhaps by adopting policies to prevent or control similar situations. Congress considers how to respond to public concerns.

No matter the views of a majority of Americans, nothing happens on gun issues. Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, says that if he supported gun control, “most [voters] would probably throw me out of office.”

Cramer’s admission raises the second major question arising from the Uvalde shootings. Murphy asked his fellow senators, “Why are you here if not to solve a problem as existential as this?”

Congress is now populated by members like Cramer and what they are “there for” is less about public service than about political survival. They might quote the verse: “He who fights and runs away may live to fight another day; but he who is battle slain can never rise to fight again.” Murphy demands to know why this is not that day, when you stand and fight.

What’s missing is leadership. Elected public officials are unwilling to risk losing an election by leading instead of following public opinion, which is often shaped by interest groups or outdated prejudices.

Gun control has become one of the leading wedge issues. Republicans have found that supporting an unconditional reading of the Second Amendment gains them millions of voters and millions of dollars from the National Rifle Association.

Senators can dodge making tough choices without seeming to run away. The filibuster requires an unconstitutional supermajority vote to even proceed to the constitutional simple majority vote. It amplifies the ability of small states whose senators represent less than 20 percent of the population to control all decisions.

The Republicans like the filibuster because without it, they risk becoming a permanent minority unable to pursue the politics of “no.” The Democrats like the filibuster because they are fearful of becoming the minority and losing the power to prevent the unraveling of government.

Result? Nothing much happens except on rare occasions when cooperation serves the political advantage of both parties. Pouring money into a Covid-damaged economy made them both look like they were responsive. Pouring money into Ukraine testified to their historic opposition to Russia.

There are no good answers to Murphy’s questions. Maybe a token firearms bill will pass, because it would serve both parties’ interest to show concern in an election year.

But little will change. There will be more mass shootings and incumbents will hold onto their seats in Congress.

Ukraine support raises question of who’s really a RINO

Gordon L. Weil

It’s “a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.” That was one man’s opinion years ago of a spark setting off the world’s greatest conflict.

Just before the Russian attack on Ukraine, a U.S. Senate candidate taunted people worried about war, saying, “I got to be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.” Sound similar?

The first statement came from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938, referring to Nazi Germany’s taking over part of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain gave Germany Britain’s approval, a classic case of trying to stay out of war by surrendering first. The war came – the Second World War.

The second quote came from J.D. Vance, a well-known author who is the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Ohio. He has the support of former President Donald Trump.

The GOP is split between traditional Republicans and the Trump forces that have taken over the Party. Trump’s policies have become the Party’s policies, leading his supporters to charge that the long-time members are RINOs – Republicans in Name Only.

This transformation has seemed almost complete and effective. Congressional primaries this year are expected to provide a reading of just how well the Trump takeover has succeeded. Vance is part of that takeover.

But the congressional reaction to the Ukraine invasion changed the political picture. Since World War II, both parties have backed efforts to halt the expansion of the Soviet Union and then of Russia, its successor. That involvement in world affairs was a change for the Republicans.

“There’s always been isolationist voices in the Republican Party,” said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell. In Chamberlain’s day, they provided the leadership for opposition to U.S. involvement in the coming world war.

The main opposition organization was called America First. Its leaders not only favored American isolation from events overseas, but some of them were openly sympathetic to Adolf Hitler’s authoritarian and anti-Semitic regime.

Republican leadership made a major course correction after the Second World War. They controlled Congress during Democratic President Harry Truman’s early years in office, at a time when he tried to take steps to stem the expansion of the Soviet Union.

GOP Sen. Arthur Vandenberg headed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He had isolationist credentials, having believed that the U.S. could make concessions to Japan that would avoid war. But he changed his views and led Republican support for Truman’s policies.

Vandenberg became famous for saying: "We must stop partisan politics at the water's edge." An opponent of the New Deal, he maintained that Congress could argue about domestic policy but should unite behind the president on foreign policy.

One outgrowth of a bipartisan foreign policy was NATO, founded in 1949 as a mutual defense organization meant to stop further Soviet expansion westward in Europe. Its key element is American assurance that the U.S. would back resistance to further Soviet moves. It worked.

If there are enough police to slash crime, some may believe that the police force can be cut because there’s now so little crime. Some NATO members and Trump seemed to adopt this view.

Trump revived America First as a slogan, and was openly sympathetic to authoritarian leaders. He disliked NATO and was favored in the 2016 election and his 2020 impeachment by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who would later launch the Russian attack on Ukraine.

The America First argument in 1941 and 2022 is essentially the same. “We have got to take care of things here at home first,” said Tennessee GOP Sen. Bill Hagerty. In other words, we should not spend money on the Ukraine war, when we have domestic and military needs.

Hagerty and his allies make such statements while ignoring the irony of their opposition to both health and welfare spending and Ukraine outlays. They prefer cutting taxes. It’s possible that their opposition is simply based on a desire to deny the federal government any more funds for any purpose.

Trump Republicans do not accept Vandenberg’s view. For them, isolationism may be good politics.

Eleven of the 50 Republican senators voted against major spending for Ukraine. All came from states without ocean access. Isolationism continued to find its home in mid-America. In the House, 57 of the 206 Republicans voted against this spending.

Does this alignment reveal the true extent of the GOP split? It clearly shows that the question of just who is a RINO remains to be determined.

Traditional Republicans have faced elimination by candidates who support Trump and follow his policies. But now most congressional Republicans have an active policy they can support, replacing their Party’s routine opposition to the Democrats.

Even to a limited degree, a dormant bipartisan policy has awakened, reviving traditional Republicanism. As with his effort to weaken NATO, Putin’s Ukraine gamble seems to have backfired.

Meet a person who isn’t there - absent American voters, workers

Gordon L. Weil



“Yesterday, upon the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there.
He wasn’t there again today,
Oh how I wish he’d go away!”

Some readers may recall these lines from an old children’s poem. It comes to mind, because today the U.S. includes many people who are not there, either in the political process or the workplace.

The absence of the people “who aren’t there” has a major effect on the course of the country, but they risk being overlooked.

In 2020, the turnout for the presidential election set new records for the number and the percentage of the eligible population that cast ballots. The high voter participation, as reported by the Census Bureau, was both a source of national pride and, because it was so high, a cause of disbelief for some of the loser’s partisans.

But that misses another major point. An impressive 155.5 million people voted for president, about 67 percent of all those who might have voted. That means about one-third of the total population that could have voted stayed away from the polls – about 76.6 million people.

Admittedly, no country has perfect voter participation, but several reach 80 percent. If the U.S. had reached that level, another 30 million people would have voted in a country that considers itself the world’s leading democracy. That’s more than the population of Australia and New Zealand combined.

In effect, the results of the U.S. presidential elections were Biden 81.3 million, Nobody 76.6 million and Trump 74.2 million.

Many of the people who don’t vote stay away for a reason. When asked anecdotally, they may say that there’s not much difference between the candidates or their votes don’t matter or they simply don’t pay attention. Of course, some are unable to vote because of personal circumstances or the effects of political voter suppression efforts.

In the end, they are ignored. Take a look at the political polls. They try to tell us what “likely voters” would do if the election were held today. If you haven’t yet decided to vote or don’t want to respond to the conventional choices offered by the pollsters, you are excluded as if you don’t exist.

By offering scripted choices only to people who say they plan to vote, the pollsters and the media may produce a seriously distorted view of the temper of the country. We routinely miss the opinions and sentiments of tens of millions of Americans.

The effect of those who are not included can produce surprises from time to time. Angry and sometimes violent rallies may include people who do not often vote and are dismissed by pollsters. If “unlikely voters” are interviewed, are they asked what’s on their minds or only given structured either-or choices that are easier to tabulate?

In short, we might know more about our own country during the current crisis of divisiveness and change if more people were taken more fully into account.

Then, there’s the Great Resignation. Millions of people have been quitting their jobs after undergoing forced unemployment caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Their absence is evident as help wanted signs sprout and consumers struggle to obtain basic services.

As the country began to adjust to the pandemic’s effects, it was reasonable to hope and expect that the economy would return to its former condition. But the Covid experience caused deeper changes than anticipated and the country is still adjusting to them. We have come commonly to speak of a “new normal.”

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, known for its objectivity, reports that in March, the number of job openings (11.5 million) and the number of what BLS calls “quits” (4.5 million) were both at record highs.

Many quits can find better paying jobs elsewhere. However, contrary to a New York Times article, the BLS does not report that virtually all have returned to the workforce. A top executive told the Times, “We’re living in this amazing transformation of the workplace, and we don’t even know it....”

The person who isn’t there knows it. They may have chosen to work one job, not two, and accept less income or to become “gig workers,” seeking work when and for as long as they want. Some who chose to retire during the pandemic are not coming back. Others may have been dropped from the labor force, because they decided simply to stay at home.

Whether all the quits will return to work may depend on employers providing better wages and working conditions. Their return may also require greater acceptance of remote work and a reduction in work hours. Pay has been improving as employers come to realize the effect of the Great Resignation.

The influence of the invisible citizen and the disappearing worker should not be ignored. Wishing won’t make them “go away.”

Court ready to make historic decision, adopting broad GOP policies

 

Gordon L. Weil

Just below the surface of the leaked draft Supreme Court abortion decision, much else was happening.

The decision would not only be a victory for pro-life activists and many Republicans, but it would take the Court well beyond the abortion issue.

Justice Samuel Alito took advantage of his drafting assignment to adopt conservative ideology on originalism and state powers plus reversing what some thought was “settled law.”

Alito wrote that states did not allow abortion when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, so the Court cannot rule that the Amendment protects the right to abortion.  In short, each part of the Constitution should be interpreted according to the conditions prevailing at the time it was adopted.

That’s constitutional originalism.  That logic could raise the question of whether the Second Amendment right to own a gun, adopted in 1791, should be limited to protecting only muzzle-loader ownership.

If the only rights the federal government can protect are limited to those expressly listed in the Constitution and then only as they applied when the document was adopted, the U.S. would plunge headlong back to the late 1700s. 

There’s no abortion right in the Constitution, Alito says.  But it recognizes individual rights beyond those in the Bill of Rights. While states have full power to regulate them, they have gradually ceded many of their powers to the federal government. This draft reflects the GOP intention to restore state authority.   

Alito correctly shows that the Court moves into lawmaking when Congress is unable to do so.  He accepts that once the Court enacted Roe v. Wade, it could repeal the law it created because the filibuster had blocked any congressional action.

At Senate confirmation hearings, prospective justices usually promise they will limit themselves to applying the law as it is written.  If that were possible, we would not need judges.  In fact, justices rely on their interpretation of what laws mean when applied to specific cases.  Different justices have different interpretations, and when a majority agrees, the Court can make law.

One part of Alito’s interpretation is consistent with the Court’s historic view. The Court follows a rule prescribing respect for its previous decisions, providing the people reliable consistency. But there is no “settled law” that cannot be reversed.  Court rulings on long-standing precedents, like those on segregation or labor rights, have been reversed

So Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could reassure Senator Susan Collins that he respected settled law, just as the Court does.  Either Collins chose to ignore legal history or followed bad advice in accepting his assurance that implied that he would not vote to overrule Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh, an experienced lawyer and judge, must have known just what he was promising.

The Supreme Court process for writing a decision has been the stage for this current controversy.  It helps explain both Alito’s strident tone and his opportunity to make a far-reaching decision.

The justices take a preliminary vote on each case. The senior judge in the majority selects the drafter of the Court’s opinion.  In this case, Justice Clarence Thomas made the choice, and could have picked himself.  But he is facing complaints about his partisanship on the Court, and maybe that’s why he chose Alito, the next most senior member of the majority.

Alito, perhaps the most conservative justice, produced an aggressive first draft on which other members of the majority can suggest revisions. Because they are not yet bound to their vote, their influence counts.  The draft also allows dissenters to begin their own drafts.

Alito’s draft decision leaked, and nobody recalls the last time that happened. There are at least three possible reasons for the leak, made by either a justice’s aide or a Court staffer or, most unlikely, a justice.

A dissenter might have thought the draft would raise an outcry leading the majority to back off.  An Alito ally might have wanted to lock in the majority, so justices could not retreat to a compromise that Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to favor.  Or a draft supporter might have thought the public reaction would induce Alito to moderate his language and legislative ambition.

In exploiting this opportunity, Alito probably goes well beyond where he must to end a federal abortion right.  He could push the Court to reveal just how far to the right it has moved.

Alito’s draft is a full-scale proclamation that the conservatives control the Court and potentially the federal government.  Undoubtedly, Roberts could see it as undermining his efforts to restore waning public belief that the Court is independent and nonpartisan.

The confrontational and strident draft proclaims a federal retreat in favor of state jurisdiction and extreme originalism, while implying that more major precedents could fall. This decision could be historically significant well beyond the abortion issue.

News reports reflect bias, lack context; miss major questions in its quest for “breaking news”

Gordon L. Weil

“All the news that’s fit to print.”

That’s the historic motto of the New York Times. But the media often misses “all the news” and is selective because of limited resources or its own biases. Maybe the press hurries too much to beat competition; not everything is “breaking news.”

Here are some questions the media might have answered.

Last week’s Maine GOP convention featured former Gov. Paul LePage, seeking to recover his old office just as might former President Donald Trump, his political ally. Will Trump follow LePage’s lead? Does he now endorse LePage? Did anybody ask him?

In summing up the Legislature’s work, the media reported that Gov. Janet Mills’ utility accountability bill had passed. Democratic opposition was noted, but the substance of intra-party differences was not explained.

Was Mills’ proposal meant to immunize her from criticism of her veto of a referendum on consumer-owned power? Did Democrats finally accept her bill, because they fear weakening her in her race against LePage?

A U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion has been leaked that would reverse its earlier Roe v. Wade ruling that abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The media reported that a slim Court majority would oppose the views of about two-thirds of Americans, who favor the right.

Reports of political opposition to the draft implied that the decision could lead to added backing in November for the Democrats, who support the right. But did the pollsters ask how many people on either side will let abortion rights bring them to the polls or determine their vote above all other issues?

The U.S. has pulled out all the stops to help embattled Ukraine. Both political parties support massive spending to provide weapons that President Volodymyr Zelensky has requested. American tolerant policy toward Russia has shifted, and the U.S. has reasserted its role as leader of the West.

Does Washington quietly believe there’s a good chance that Russia can be finally toppled as a world power as it depletes its economy and its military?

To cut the world’s use of Russian fuels, the West wants to ramp up oil and natural gas production. That means more drilling and fracking, not less. At the same time, experts are beginning to say that the world may be chasing unrealistic climate change goals, which undermines chances of success.

Are we backing off ambitious climate change targets to deal with a war that has disrupted the world? Do our electric cars and other individual efforts to protect the environment matter when China boosts its coal use?

Inflation may be the biggest news, mainly because it affects almost everyone. With voters aware of the problem, the media reports on Republican efforts to blame President Joe Biden.

How did the GOP vote on big spending bills, including aid to Ukraine? Is inflation party due to Covid-19 and the Ukraine war’s disruptive effect on trade? How much did Federal Reserve policy cause the problem? The pundits may speculate, but attacks on Biden are easier to report.

We hear a lot about “fake news,” but this failure to ask the right questions is really “half news.” Reports are not inaccurate, but they are incomplete. When news lacks context allowing us to understand its background and complexity, it can confuse.

Of course, there are the serious problems of reports based on false assumptions and fake news.

We are often told, perhaps in good faith, that something is true and then “logical” conclusions are drawn from that supposed truth. We accept the assumptions and often readily accept the logic.

The media errs almost daily in its assumptions about Russia’s moves in Ukraine. Can it really draw instant political conclusions from a draft Supreme Court decision?

Questionable assumptions, stated as though they were self-evident, exist in both the liberal and conservative media. When conservative and liberal outlets differ even on their assumptions, the political divide is understandable.

Even worse is “fake news,” a statement that the writer or speaker knows to be untrue. The New York Times has been covering Fox commentator Tucker Carlson, who broadcasts from his home in Maine. He has stated that “Gypsy” refugees left Pennsylvania “streets covered — pardon us now, but it’s true — with human feces.” He offered no evidence of that, and it is not true.

Scientific American recently commented that fake news is believed and shared more by certain conservatives than by other viewers. But we all like news that confirms our opinions.

The print media sometimes fact checks its own reports, though not often enough right in the news item itself. Who checks news clips on the electronic media? Both need to do more.

We cannot expect perfection from the media. We, too, need to do more to find the facts in our complex world.

Ukraine's advantage over Russia

 

Gordon L. Weil

What’s the link between a Maine Civil War general and the surprising Ukraine survival in its war with Russia?

In 1864, the Union’s Army of the Tennessee, previously led by Generals U.S. Grant and W.T. Sherman, needed a new leader. Sherman, who had become commander of the entire Union Army in the West, controversially jumped over the expected choice and named General Oliver Otis Howard, originally from Leeds, Maine.

Howard, a graduate of Bowdoin College and West Point, understood military strategy and tactics. But equally important, he knew how to supply an army of tens of thousands moving constantly with everything from rations to gunpowder. He became Sherman’s chief deputy in probably the longest march of any major Civil War command.

Though the word did not yet exist, Howard was a master of what came to be called “logistics.” Sherman understood logistics, revealed by his destruction in Atlanta of the railroads supplying Confederate troops.

His emphasis on logistics was evident in the Grand Review Parade in Washington at the end of the war. At the head of the line, riding a step behind Sherman came Howard. Trailing Sherman’s troops of the West past the reviewing stand was a herd of cattle, a sort of mobile supply chain.

Few supply wizards are rated as war heroes. The work may seem boring, but it is vital and armies are mostly composed of support troops. It has been estimated that as little as one solder in ten actually faces the enemy in combat.

A Defense Department official decades later would state: “Logistics isn’t rocket science...it’s much harder.” Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky got it.

According to the New York Times: “In the first days of the war Mr. Zelensky set three priorities for his government’s ministries ...: weapons procurement, shipments of food and other goods, and maintaining supplies of gasoline and diesel. The ministries were told to rewrite regulations to ensure swift delivery on all three tracks.”

For weapons procurement, Zelensky got strong help from the U.S. and other NATO countries. Weapons were transported by them right to the border of a nation at war. The initial defensive armaments could be transported from the Poland-Ukraine border on trains.

Zelensky seemed intuitively to know that Ukraine could benefit from its situation. He did not need to deploy his soldiers over long supply lines. Russia’s vast size might be a cause of weakness, because of long supply lines and poor logistics.

President Vladimir Putin, having no military experience, thought his troops would win in days and obviously gave little thought to logistics. His forces stalled on the road to Kyiv, making his tanks and armored vehicles easy targets for the hand-held rockets supplied to Ukrainian soldiers who could focus on combat not logistics.

Good supply beat poor supply. Putin failed to take Kyiv, because Ukraine’s resistance halted Russia’s advance and could pick off Russia’s mechanized convoy, strung out over 40 miles. Even when Putin later shifted his troops to the East, they had to wait days for supplies before they could attack.

Much has been said about how the Russian Army greatly outnumbers Ukraine’s forces. On the strength of those numbers, the conventional wisdom was that Russia could easily crush Ukraine. But it’s likely that gross numbers have been misleading when logistics was taken into account.

Although we cannot know for sure, here’s some possible math in round numbers. If Russia had 200,000 troops poised for invasion, possibly only one-in-five or 40,000 could be committed to combat. On the Ukraine side, perhaps one soldier in three, as many as 60,000, could serve on the front lines. And Ukraine’s troops have proved to be far better trained.

The difference is in weapons, which might explain Zelensky’s repeated requests for more and better arms. Also, Russia freely attacks Ukraine, which can do little to destroy the Russian supply lines across the border.

While Ukraine did not seek war, it is providing an immense service in revealing Russia’s weakness, showing that its great power status relies on its nuclear arsenal. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III has said that the American objective is “to see Russia weakened to the degree it cannot do the kind of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

Zelensky knew what Sherman, who also fought almost surrounded by hostile territory, knew. Perhaps we will never know the names of Ukrainian logistics generals, just as few remember Howard.

The man who Sherman passed over was John A. Logan, who ran for vice president with Maine’s James G. Blaine in his losing run for president in 1884.

Recognition for Howard came from a university in Washington, D.C. named for him, recognizing his historic fight for racial equality. Vice President Kamala Harris is a graduate of Howard University.