GOP campaign focus moves to religion, citizenship

Donald Trump failed to correct a questioner who said President Obama is a Muslim and not an American.  Ben Carson opposes a Muslim being president.

At least five conservative Republican candidates oppose allowing children born in the United States of foreign parents to be citizens.  These are “birthright” babies or, more critically, “anchor babies,” suggesting they are born here mainly to give their parents a way of following them into citizenship.

These views raise both matters of fact and reveal a failure to accept the plain language of the Constitution.

Obama is an American and is not a Muslim.  After the offensive comment, Trump said he would not defend the president, failing to show he was a leader and not merely a candidate exploiting a falsehood.

As for religion, being a Muslim or any other religion or none at all cannot be a block to public office.  Article 6 of the Constitution says, “no religious test shall ever be required” to hold office.

To deal with citizenship as some GOP candidates would like, means abandoning the Constitution, as supported in an 1898 decision of the Supreme Court.

From the outset, all born in the U.S. were considered citizens, except for African Americans and Indians.  In the infamous 1856 Dred Scott decision, the Court said that African Americans, even those who were free, could not be citizens.

Following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted, saying: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  That seems clear.

Today’s opponents of allowing the children of illegal immigrants to be citizens say the “born” part of the Amendment was only meant to apply to African Americans and not to Hispanics or others.  They claim it is being stretched beyond the intention of the people who drafted the Amendment.

The facts don’t support that view.  In the congressional debates on citizenship right after the Civil War, some senators raised the question of whether the new rules would authorize including the “children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country.”  The answer was citizenship would include them and that was the intent. 

In the late 19^th Century, while European immigrants poured into the country, Congress blocked any additional Chinese immigrants.  In its 1898 decision, the Supreme Court said Chinese children born in the U.S. were subject to American jurisdiction and thus citizens, even if their parents were not.

One of the two Court dissenters admitted his bias.  Chinese were “a race utterly foreign to us and never will assimilate with us,” he said.  His opposition was less legal than cultural, and that may be today’s message as well.  Diversity is changing the country, and some people are bound not to like the change.

At least some Republicans oppose a path to permanent residence for a largely Hispanic population composed of undocumented or illegal immigrants.  Concerned that assimilating as many as 11 million people already here will change the country or simply believing lawbreakers should not be rewarded, they want these immigrants deported.

Thanks their opposition, Congress has be unable to adopt an immigration policy.  In the absence of action, the Obama administration, while running what is likely the largest American deportation program ever, has tried to halt the break-up of families. 

Obama angers his opponents, because he has extended protection to the immigrant parents of citizens.  His critics question whether he has the authority to take such action, accomplished by giving their possible removal a low deportation priority.  Federal courts will decide that question.

Some advocates of deporting all illegal immigrants believe their children, though born in the U.S., should not be allowed to stay and should leave with them.  The problem is their American citizenship.  But who would take care of the children if they were left behind?

There are a number of obviously wrong answers to these issues.  The children cannot be denied citizenship without amending the Constitution.  Millions of people cannot be deported.  The president’s move cannot become a permanent substitute for congressional action.

The answer is a comprehensive new immigration policy.  Members of Congress should act and take the risks that go with leadership.  That’s highly unlikely with national elections not far off.

The U.S. has benefited from immigration, the cause of great economic growth.  More workers and more customers would help the economy now, but only if Americans and their leaders, themselves descendents of immigrants, will accept the continued assimilation of the foreign born. 

Speaking truth to power: Wealthy told their charity is not enough

“Speaking truth to power” sounds good, because it suggests the speaker’s courage in facing strong opponents.  Often, though, the speaker and the powerful are not in the same room.

However, in July, a New York Times columnist gave an in-your-face speech before the elite and powerful at their annual gathering in swank Aspen, Colorado.  His remarks have attracted unusually wide attention for a speech to a relative handful of people, who did not like what they heard.

Anand Giridharadas, the columnist, was a regular participant in these gatherings.  He had been asked to give a talk on forgiveness, but admitted to his audience, “After I have spoken, I will need your forgiveness.”

The audience was composed of people who had gained great success in their professional and business lives –“winners” as he called them.  They prided themselves on “giving back” by contributing to undoubtedly worthy causes.

His message boiled down to telling them that their charity was not enough, and they needed to reform how they made their money.  But he understood their message was, “the winners of our age must be challenged to do more good.  But never, ever tell them to do less harm.” 

In his view, the way they earned their wealth could do more harm to others than their charitable gifts did good for others.  He chose to focus on the harm.

The winners, he said, have gained from getting even richer in recent years.  And their new wealth did not result from their getting better at whatever they do, but from the policies they supported politically.  They have opposed taxes on inheritances and on many financial transactions and favored laws allowing them to conceal their wealth.

Their actions meant less money is available for education, vocational training, public works, social programs and financial aid.  If you look at countries limiting such tax breaks, more money flows from the more fortunate to the less fortunate.

He argued that the corporate world has made a sustained effort to shift risk from itself to workers.  Companies shed responsibility for benefits and job security for the simple reason it improves profits.

The winners’ institutions have grown remote from others, he said.  Complex investment structures insulate owners from employees and customers.  The recent mortgage crisis provides an excellent example of the gap between investors and the people encouraged to borrow beyond their means.

Giridharadas directly challenged the concept that business methods can solve society’s problems or that pure free enterprise will ultimately lead to all people doing better.

He pointed out that investment did not end slavery or abolish child labor or put fire escapes on tenement factories or stop drug makers from “slipping antifreeze into medicine.”  Clearly, he thinks government deserves some of the winners’ resources for such purposes.

The winners use charitable giving to protect themselves from others taking a close look at how they made their money, he said.  They want to ensure the survival of measures benefitting the wealthy, such as weak banking and labor laws, protective zoning barriers and insufficient efforts to end discrimination.

Of course, the winners can be generous.  In short, it is easier in his view for the wealthy to make tax-deductible gifts to help a few of the less fortunate than to consider sacrificing some of their advantages so that many others can get ahead. 

“For generosity is a win-win, but justice often is not,” he said.  “Ask yourself: Does the world need more food companies donating playgrounds to children, or rather reformed food companies that don’t profit from fattening children?”

Whatever you think of his message, a listener may be impressed with his courage to voice it in front of those he challenges.  Reportedly, he received only a polite response from his audience, though he praised them and professed to find them “amazing.”

Next week, it is likely that Americans will hear something like these words from Pope Francis, who has made these concerns a key part of his message.

Some may see the Pope as intervening in the political debate over the proper role of government.  Yet government itself may not be the issue.  In a more provocative way, such remarks may really be about societies in which the winners form one class and the other class can turn out to be what one candidate calls “losers.”

Giridharadas’ speech or the Pope’s expected message should not be viewed as taking sides in politics as much as an effort to prod some people – the winners – to take more responsibility for the effects of their actions.

Major economies rely on dangerous myths

China’s economy is tanking.  Refugees flood Europe.  Possible interest rate hike threatens U.S.

These three major stories are based on major myths.

China’s economy is in trouble.  Though under a Communist government, the country seems to allow its brand of free enterprise, including foreign investment.  It even has a stock market.

The government has tried to give the impression the benefits of capitalism can be achieved or even surpassed thanks to its ability to intervene and ensure efficient operation.  The stock and other markets boomed, and the economy boasted of remarkable growth.

But the government achieved these results artificially.  While China had something that looked like a free market, the results were actually the result of government manipulation.  Meanwhile, corruption and inflated markets grew.

The new leadership promised to reduce corruption without fully understanding how deep it went.  As it eliminated key people from leadership, China has become nervous about the future.

China’s market growth could not be sustained as prices rose too high.  The government reduced the value of the currency, creating a sense of near panic.  Instead of stabilizing the economy, its attempts to reduce imports, increase exports and support markets came too little and too late.

The result would be that, the market bubbles gone, China would have fewer resources to support its play for world power.  And the reduced Chinese need for imports would pose new threats for the economies of developed countries, though relatively little to the United States.

The myth of the state-run but partly free Chinese economy is fading.

After World War II, some European leaders decided that joining the countries of the Old World together as closely as possible would make it impossible for them to wage against each other once again.  They openly promoted a “United States of Europe.”

Their idea brought about remarkable progress.  National economies became increasingly integrated.  Some countries dropped their currencies in favor of the euro, a multi-nation currency.  The prospect of war in Europe virtually disappeared, not only because of unification efforts, but because the European economy became part of an interdependent world economy.

But some European countries chafed under centrally made rules.  By the time of the 2014 election of the latest president of the European Commission, the European Union’s independent managing body, the winning candidate said he opposed a “United States of Europe.”

The EU has no common refugee policy.  As they have streamed in recent months from the Middle East to Europe, refugees have found some countries, acting on their own, tried to shut the door on their entry.  Refugee access opened only after international attention became embarrassing.

And the common currency was not backed by a common tax policy that could raise the funds to support it in a crisis or by a method of forcing participants to avoid excessive debt.  The Greek crisis eased only when some countries increased bailout funding for their weakened partner.

The euro as a mature, world currency and Europe as a unified region were revealed as myths, though Europe could make them real.

In the U.S., after Congress blocked efforts to stimulate the economy by increased federal spending, the Federal Reserve was left to deal with high unemployment and the effects of the recession.  It lowered interest rates almost to zero to make loans supporting job creation as inexpensive as possible.

Investors, including the pensions funds on which many retirees depend, turned away from buying low-interest bonds in favor of stocks, which have a better chance of producing income.  But each time there has been any hint that the Fed would raise interest rates, stocks have lost value based on the belief that investors would soon return to bonds.

Interest rates have remained low, while, at the same time, stocks have fallen in value.  Not only does that send an inaccurate message about the state of the economy, where unemployment has dropped, but it undercuts retirement incomes.

The market reaction may discourage the Fed from increasing rates even after employment has recovered.  But the market reaction is based on myths.

The truth is the Fed is almost certainly only going to nudge up the rate and will not send it to such higher levels that bonds –lending money – will suddenly look better than stocks – investing money.   

And there is ample history that higher interest rates can co-exist with good stock prices.

In short, like China and Europe, the U.S. has its myths.    Having confidence in myths can be dangerous to economic health anywhere, so now may be the moment to abandon harmful and mistaken beliefs.

For one Republican, Iran presents challenge

In judging the proposed nuclear accord with Iran, it looks like wisdom is determined by political party. 

Almost all Republicans quickly opposed the deal.  The Democrats, true their more unruly traditions, are mostly supporting it, though some are vocal in opposition.

The GOP members of Congress are not only opposed to President Obama, hardly a change from their stance since he first took office, but also to the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, the United Nations and the European Union. 

Their almost united opposition to the deal in the face of support from so many others could easily be read as matter of politics over policy.  Iran could take its place alongside the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – as central elements of the Republicans’ 2016 campaign effort to take over the White House while keeping control of the House and Senate.

By arguing against the Iran deal strongly and repeatedly, the Republicans are conditioning public concern about it, laying the foundation for campaign attacks in the general election.  The Obama Administration has often been weak in defending its own policies, as the discussion of Obamacare has shown.

The current political calculation is that Obama will squeak by and avoid an outright congressional rejection of the deal, because he will hold onto enough Democrats to prevent a GOP override of his veto in the Senate.  The Democrats might even be able to prevent the matter from coming to a vote in the Senate.

There is only one Republican senator who has not announced opposition.  “Obama’s last hope for GOP support on Iran: Susan Collins,” headlines a Washington political newspaper.

Because she has not yet taken a position on the deal could mean that she is considering its provisions carefully and not merely adopting the party line.

Careful consideration, which includes reading the documents clearly skipped by many of her colleagues, makes sense.  This is an important matter worthy of careful review.  And like any human product, it is certainly not perfect, so it’s fair to balance its merits and defects.

But Collins must also take political factors into account.  Her GOP Senate leaders certainly would like her support and are more likely to reward her if she follows their policy of opposition.  And there are surely Republicans in Maine who will be angry or disappointed if she strays from the party position.

That could mean Collins would have to be willing to show the kind of political courage she has occasionally demonstrated in the past, which could place her in the Maine political pantheon with Margaret Chase Smith, Edmund Muskie, George Mitchell, Bill Cohen and perhaps Olympia Snowe.

Waiting to announce her decision until all the other votes fall into place could make political sense.

Let’s say the Democrats have enough votes to ensure that in the Senate the Iran deal cannot be overturned, as now seems likely.  She might find the politics easier to go along with the GOP knowing that her vote sticking with her party would not block the deal.

But, if the outlook for the deal in the Senate remains in doubt and Collins decides the deal is acceptable, her vote could be critical.  Even if her popularity with independents and Democrats in Maine could provide reassurance about her reelection, that vote could make her political life far more difficult.

To help both sides, she could vote against a Democratic move to cut off debate and, if they lack the necessary votes to block a vote, permit the rejection vote.  Then, she could choose to support the deal or to sustain Obama’s veto of the rejection bill.

In fairness, it is estimated that three GOP House members have not stated their positions and could support the deal.  But it is unlikely that whatever they do could have as decisive and visible an effect as what Collins might do.

It is worth recalling that the Affordable Care Act passed without a single Republican vote in either the House or Senate.  That would make outright opposition by the GOP, including Collins, not unusual.  In fact, if she were to support the Iran deal, it would be an historic sign of at least one senator’s effort to break down the partisan walls in Washington.

The Republicans seem to be readying themselves to lose in their opposition.  Some of them say the deal will not really advance until the world sees if the GOP takes control of the federal government in 2017.  

Given the deal’s almost immediate acceptance by much of the world community, this seems to be unrealistic.  So Susan Collins’s vote matters now.

Lacking detailed policy, Trump exploits style

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump may be teaching candidates of either party a valuable lesson.

Be yourself.

As pundits ponder the reason for his surprising success in polling about the Republican candidates and even in contests with Democrats, the explanation may be obvious.  Trump comes across as a person who expresses himself spontaneously, revealing his real self.

His style stands in contrast to most traditional candidates who carefully plan their words to gain support and to avoid offending any voters.  Often they end up speaking in generalities.  The public sees them as politicians doing what politicians do.

Trump makes a point of saying that he does not seek to be “politically correct.”  He appears to mean that he won’t say something that he doesn’t believe simply to ensure he remains in line with general opinion.

Not being “politically correct” or just plain “correct” may alienate parts of the voting public.  Do that often enough and you could have a tough time winning an election.

Trump’s approach could help him in a huge field of candidates during the primaries in which relatively few Republicans will participate in selecting the party’s nominee.  Still, it could make winning a general election impossible.

But Maine Gov. Paul LePage provides evidence to the contrary.  His 2014 reelection victory after he was outspoken about his political opponents shows that the spontaneous style also used by Trump may work.

This style has so far been a substitute for Trump providing details on his policy positions.  He shows a great deal of unexplained self-confidence and for some voters, that’s good enough.  His success in the polls has allowed him to set the terms of the GOP selection process.

Among the other GOP hopefuls, some have tried to imitate him, though he appears to be too far ahead of them for their moves to matter.  Except for Jeb Bush’s recent statements, they have hardly pushed back against his bold assertions and inaccuracies.

As he has struck a political nerve, the media has been covering him less as a political candidate than as a celebrity in world where celebrity news is journalistic gold.  It seems almost hypnotized by his skillful exploitation of his visibility.  If the media shifts its campaign coverage to the field, it will be worth watching to see if his attraction lessens.

As much as he has an effect on the Republican presidential race, there may also be an echo and an effect in the Democratic Party.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is the echo.  Though his positions are almost directly opposite to Trump’s, he, too, appears as a candidate who speaks his mind without fear of offending voters.  If he’s not as spontaneous as Trump, he certainly seems as genuine.

For example, he has no problem labeling himself a “democratic socialist.”  He does this with apparently growing support in a country where “socialism” is mostly used as a dirty word politically.  Sanders seems to have long understood the virtues of being plain spoken.

Vice President Joe Biden may be Trump’s effect on the Democrats.  In the past, his great problem has been unscripted remarks that may get him into trouble.  He has had to apologize more than once.  And he forced President Obama to take a public position on the issue, when he blurted out his support for same-sex marriage. 

Now, what has been his main problem could turn into his chief asset if he chooses to run for the Democratic nomination.  It’s difficult to doubt he is genuine and not programmed, and that has appeal these days.

Contrast Trump or Biden with Hillary Clinton.  Hers is the model of a strictly planned campaign.  No errors are to be admitted and all comments appear to be prepared.  In short, talking points are known well in advance, much as was the case with President George W. Bush.  She often looks like a parent talking down to her ignorant kids.

The Clinton approach may look even more obvious because of its contrast with Trump or Sanders and possibly Biden.  There’s still time for her to unbend a bit, admit errors and look somewhat more human.  Still, there’s no doubt that the seeming certainty of her getting the Democratic nomination has decreased.

Candidates for president promise much, but voters often choose based on their opinion of the person’s ability to govern and not on specific proposals.  Spontaneity may reveal character better than do canned speeches.

Trump may be contributing to this year’s process, though plain speaking cannot completely substitute for a responsible platform.