Democrats worry about possible election conspiracy claims

Gordon L. Weil

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants the Democratic presidential candidate next year to score a landslide victory over President Trump.

If he lost by a narrow margin, she worries that Trump would challenge the result, claiming there had been a conspiracy to rig the election.  He might then refuse to leave office at the end of his term. 

Her worry might seem far-fetched, but she notes that Trump continues to challenge Hillary Clinton's nearly three million popular vote majority in 2016.  He claims there was massive illegal voting for her, though nobody has produced any evidence of it.

Pelosi's solution would be for the Democrat to win by a large enough number of votes that it would be impossible to make a potentially believable claim that Trump's defeat resulted from massive vote fraud.

Whatever they say about focusing mainly on the issues, the Democrats all have one principal goal – getting Trump out of the Oval Office.  Some assert he has made the country ripe for a major move to the left.    

The Speaker argues that the party should pick a middle-of-the road candidate who could hold onto the Trump voters who voted for Democratic congressional candidates last year.  She does not see a winning answer to Trump politics being a radical turn to the left, as do some Democratic hopefuls. 

She is concerned that Trump does not like or respect constitutional limits and practice.  He could seek to override the limits on his term in office by declaring a conspiracy-driven national emergency.  Given the Supreme Court's partisan Bush-Gore decision in 2000, Trump might even hope for legal backing allowing him to hold onto power.

If this all seems like Nancy dreaming, it underrates the role of conspiracy thinking and false information in today's political scene.  Fantastic stories are offered as explanation of major claims.  "Facts" are created to support these tales, even if there is no evidence for them.

The Washington Post Fact Checker, generally regarded as the best in the country, has documented more than 10,000 times since he took office when Trump has made a statement that was not true.  Many are repetitions.  He relies on manufactured facts to support policies he advocates.

He claims that those who oppose his misstatements are producing "fake news."  It matters little to him that these reports can provide evidence.  Similarly, this way of viewing events might make possible charges of a conspiracy to commit vote fraud.

Just how widespread a conspiracy can extend is illustrated by the claim that vaccinations cause autism in children.  There is no evidence this is true.  The result has been the dangerous spread of measles and even some deaths.  The illness could have virtually been eliminated if people were vaccinated.

Trump's own persistent claim that President Obama was not born in the U.S. is another example of a widespread but false belief spread by a claim lacking evidence.  Obama finally produced his birth certificate, but even that was questioned.  In light of Trump's refusal to reveal his tax returns, Obama probably should have ignored him.

Who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?  For the answer, you can pick from a menu of conspiracy theories, all stated with firm conviction.  Was the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre in Connecticut a performance by actors and staged by gun opponents, leaving nobody really dead?  No facts, no evidence.

Did Russia try to influence the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump, even if his campaign did nothing more than accept the help?  Conspiracy claim or fact?

A conspiracy balloon should be popped by solid facts reported by the independent media relying on evidence.  A lot of that is happening, but faces two problems.

First, newspapers and cable channels have lined up editorially for or against Trump and it may seem their news coverage is biased.  That's all the more true when opinion is offered as if it were a news report.

The other reason the media may be mistrusted is that readers and viewers bring their prejudices with them.  If you readily believe in conspiracies, then you may look behind a straight news report to find a hidden meaning.  A wide sense of cynicism exists, making suspect any objective journalism.

That's why Pelosi may be right about what her party needs.  Its candidate would not only win, but must win massively.  Only then could conspiracy be forced to the fringes.

Voters can't be passive, but must make the effort to separate fact from opinion, rejecting unfounded conspiracies.  Even if free speech allows anything to be said, facts matter.

Voters need to know secrets in Trump's tax returns

Gordon L. Weil

When he ran for president, Donald Trump refused to make his tax returns public, saying they were under IRS audit.  His message was that he would make them public as soon as they were final.

A taxpayer can make his returns public even when under audit.  One reason for temporary secrecy may be that the IRS could require that they be amended and the candidate wants to present only the corrected documents.  But President Trump's permanent refusal departs from decades of practice by presidents and candidates. 

It seems obvious that Trump has no intention of ever making his returns public or turning confidential copies over to Congress.  Equally obvious is that his refusal is not based on a rule or concern about accuracy, but rather because he has something to hide.

Trump is an unusual president.  Though his sons manage his company day-to-day, he has remained in business while serving as president.  There is no law against that.  But, until now, all presidents have worked at the job full-time with no other active business.

Because of his continued company involvement, Trump receives an income from it in addition to his presidential pay.  Again, that's not illegal, but it is unprecedented.

Previous presidents have placed their financial interests in a blind trust.  An independent manager controlled their assets and had the right to buy or sell investments without the knowledge of the president.  In that way, the president could avoid any conflict of interest in taking official action for personal benefit.

It is likely that Trump's interests are not sufficiently diversified that they could readily become part of a different investment portfolio.  That leaves only two solutions if he wanted to assure voters that he has no conflict of interest.

He could simply have sold his company upon taking office and transferred the proceeds to a blind trust.  He would no longer be in the real estate business.  Or he could publish his tax returns and related financial information so that the public, courts and Congress could judge if he had any conflicts between his public office and his business.

Because Trump won't disclose his returns, there's much speculation about his reasons.  Of greatest concern would be a financial relationship with others who are subject to federal government regulation or with foreign countries trying to influence his foreign policy.

Of course, if he engaged in a business relationship with a known or accused lawbreaker, that, too, would be a problem.

Another kind of speculation, fueled by Michael Cohen, formerly his personal attorney and now a federal convict, would be the risk of embarrassment.  Perhaps he is not as fabulously wealthy as he would like the public to believe.  

Even worse, perhaps he misrepresented his wealth to obtain bank loans for his investments.

This week, the New York Times, having seen some of his tax information, said he had lost over $1 billion in ten years when he claimed to be gaining wealth.

There's also the emoluments clause of the Constitution.  It says no federal official can, without congressional approval, "accept of any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign state." 

By accepting money "of any kind whatever" from a foreign government, a person might be fined or even subject to removal from office.  Trump is now challenged in federal court on that matter.  If the person lied about such a payment on his tax returns, he could be charged with income tax evasion.

The House of Representatives has requested Trump's tax returns as allowed by law for its use in lawmaking and oversight activities relative to any conflict of interest. 

But Trump believes that the sole purpose of the request is to seek information that could embarrass him politically in next year's presidential election.  No tax information previously revealed to the public has changed a presidential election result.

Out of loyalty to the president, the Secretary of the Treasury, home of the IRS, has refused the congressional request.  He claims the House's request is not lawful, because it is intended to serve political purposes, not for oversight or lawmaking.

The matter will surely go the court.  Congress can make a good case that another branch of government cannot determine whether its request is relevant to its functions under the Constitution. 

But Trump may drag the case out until after the next elections, when he hopes the Republicans will regain control of Congress and he will be reelected.

Meanwhile, voters are denied their right and need to know.

Court: Women's natural rights overrule anti-abortion law

Gordon L. Weil

True or false?  The U.S. Constitution begins: "Natural Rights.  All people ... have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights...."

False.  That is in the first sentence of the Maine Constitution.  Most other states have a natural rights clause.  For example, the Kansas Constitution begins: "Equal rights.  All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights...."

The Declaration of Independence adopted the principle of natural rights in the United States, but those exact words were not included in the Constitution.  It contains similar but more limited provisions.

This concept is not simply what some belittle as a "glittering generality."  It may mean a lot.  That's what the Kansas Supreme Court decided last week, determining a state law violated the natural right to liberty.

By a 6-1 vote, it overruled a state law designed to limit a woman's right to an abortion.  When a conservative state produces a decision on state law that cannot be appealed, possibly making many conservatives unhappy, that's news. 

This was no Ivy League decision.  All seven judges had studied at one of two Kansas law schools.  Four were appointed by Republican governors and three by Democrats. 

Given GOP domination of Kansas politics in recent years, the decision received national coverage.  Most government action on abortions in mid-America is aimed at restricting access to them.  Kansas upset the pattern.

As important and surprising as the decision may have been, the court's reason for its decision was more far-reaching.  It was a rare moment when a government institution focuses on the fundamentals of American beliefs underpinning the entire system of government.

Many people may believe that the Bill of Rights lists all the rights given to people by the government.  In fact, it only limits the power of government to infringe certain rights that people already have.  The Constitution specifically states that people have other rights which government cannot override.

Many state constitutions, like those in Maine and Kansas, go beyond the U.S. Constitution and declare that people have natural rights, which result from their being, well, human beings. 

Natural rights, derived from nature itself, exist with or without government.  When people create governments, they give up only some of their rights.

The Kansas court found that the state could not limit the natural right of a person to control her own body by denying her access to what doctors consider the safest abortion method.  The Kansas law was unconstitutional because it violated the state constitution's recognition of natural rights.

The decision was a stark reminder that people have inherent natural rights and choose to cede some authority to government, not that government gives people their rights.

What about the sole dissenter?  He agreed that people have natural rights and may limit some of them to give powers to government.  But the people themselves must decide what rights they have limited or kept.  They elect legislators to act for them.

Americans are accustomed to majority rule.  Can the constitutional recognition of natural rights, belonging to each person, be overruled by the majority?  "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away, especially by government, but doesn't that happen frequently?

In the dissenter's view, courts should not decide on natural rights.  But the Court majority noted that checks and balances empower it to review legislative action.  Is there judicial review of whether laws are constitutional when it come to natural law or is majority rule the last word?

The dissenter questioned if courts really have the authority to decide what a natural right is, even if that right is recognized in a constitution.  If they don't have the authority, how much is the right worth?

Most people now believe they have a right to privacy, though it is not mentioned in the Constitution.  The U.S. Supreme Court, not Congress, acknowledged it.   It relied on a key article written by Samuel D. Warren, a Boston lawyer and owner of a paper mill in Westbrook, Maine, and his law partner, Louis D. Brandeis, later a Supreme Court justice.

Governments, federal and state, have assumed increasing powers, sometimes required in an increasingly complex world.  But they also set themselves apart from the people who are the ultimate source of their powers.  Think of times when government secrecy is used for government's own 

purposes.

If the Kansas decision is taken seriously, other state courts may question abortion laws and government attempts to assert powers at the expense of people's natural rights.  Will lawyers, opposing government policies, start asking the Supreme Court to consider natural rights?

This could get interesting.

Impeachment history reveals risk for both Trump and Dems

Gordon L. Weil

Impeachment is in the air. 

The Mueller report made no criminal charges against President Trump, but questioned some of his attempts to obstruct the inquiry.  Some in Congress believe he should be impeached for those actions.

Impeachment is almost always political, and it could well be in this case.  Only Democrats are considering impeachment.  They understand that impeachment would be a political act.

It can be voted by a majority of the House of Representatives, where Democrats now enjoy control.  After impeachment, the Senate can convict by a two-thirds vote.  That would require some GOP senators to vote to convict.  That's quite unlikely, making the House vote little more than a gesture.

For House Democrats, impeaching Trump might only be worth doing if it helped them in the 2020 elections.  If not, it could place a burden on Democratic candidates.  Obviously, nobody knows the answer.

In fairness, some Democrats believe that Trump's actions to try to kill the Mueller investigation did truly transgress the limits on presidential powers.  They may believe that the issue needs to be tested for the sake of history, not only current politics.

That possibility could have influenced Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General William Barr went along.  All three are Republicans.  Rather than charging Trump with criminal acts, they may have chosen to leave only the impeachment option.

The Constitution contains the power of impeachment to help ensure that limits could be placed on federal officials, not only presidents, who engage in criminal activity or exceed their powers.  The House, as prosecutor, and the Senate, as court, decide.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the judiciary is not involved.

The penalty for impeachment may be political embarrassment; the penalty for conviction is expulsion.  Neither is the same as a court judgment of criminal guilt.

Several impeachment proceedings have resulted in conviction and expulsion, usually when connected to a criminal act.  But in the most important cases, no conviction was obtained.

In 1805, the House, controlled by Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, impeached Samuel Chase, a Federalist-appointed Supreme Court justice, who had been openly hostile to Jefferson.  Some of Jefferson's supporters voted against impeachment as did some in the Senate, which did not convict.

The Jeffersonians were politically motivated in taking action against Chase.  But some of them put the independence of the judiciary above partisanship.  Federalist judicial appointees would survive, even as presidential politics changed.

The first attempt to remove a president came when Republicans tried to oust Andrew Johnson, a Democratic senator who had been Lincoln's second-term vice president.  Republicans wanted to transform southern society, not merely suppress secession.  Johnson wanted to go easy on the South, allowing it to pursue racist policies. 

By a straight partisan vote, with southern Democrats not yet back in Congress, Johnson was impeached.  The Senate missed conviction by one vote, after seven Republicans voted to acquit.  Contrary to myth, none paid a political price for his vote. 

Maine's William Pitt Fessenden, a Bowdoin graduate, cast the first Republican vote against conviction.  He disliked Johnson's policy, but rejected using conviction for partisan political purposes.  In the end, Johnson prevailed, when a fully restored Congress backed his policy.

In 1974, a bipartisan House committee vote recommended impeachment of President Richard Nixon for covering up his campaign's break-in at the Democratic National Committee offices.  His actions may have been criminal.   

When Nixon learned that many Senate Republicans would vote to convict him, he resigned.  The elections that year yielded a crushing Democratic majority.

In 1999, the House impeached President Bill Clinton by bipartisan vote for lying to investigators about his personal, non-political transgressions.  The Senate refused to convict.  

Several Republicans, including Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, opposed conviction.  A Republican won the presidency in 2000, but the party lost seats in Congress.

History shows heavy, if not absolute, partisanship in the impeachment process.  Only in Nixon's case was impeachment connected to probable criminal action as president.  Only in his case did it, or the threat of it, work.

Because impeachment is a political act, the Democrats must make a political judgment.  Will they help or hurt themselves politically by impeaching Trump without winning conviction and possibly without a single Republican vote?  History goes both ways.

Besides, impeachment might not prevent a Trump comeback.  Federal judge Alcee Hastings, impeached and convicted, is now Florida's longest serving member of Congress.  Andrew Johnson returned to the Senate and was sworn into office by the vice president who, as a senator, had voted to convict him.

Assange, Wikileaks endanger independent press

Gordon L.  Weil

Julian Assange creates problems. 

The Wikileaks founder does it not only by releasing stolen documents, but also by his own release from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Assange enjoyed Ecuador's diplomatic protection, because he feared the British would send him to the U.S. to be tried for releasing secret documents.  The former Ecuadorian president shared his dislike of the U.S.  His successor differed and had Assange expelled.

Bradley (later, Chelsea) Manning was an American soldier who stole documents and passed them to Wikileaks, an online news group aimed at embarrassing governments by exposing their secret communications.  The theft was illegal and Manning, subject to military law, was imprisoned.

But the revelation itself of government secrets is a function of the free press, guaranteed by the Constitution.  Was Assange's action protected by freedom of the press?  Could he be arrested for receiving documents he knew were stolen?

A free press can keep an independent watch on government.  It represents the public, which cannot exercise control of supposedly democratic institutions if it lacks information on what its leaders are doing.

In a mass democracy, government often sees itself as separate from citizens, not subject to them.  A free press tries to help the public control their government, especially if that means revealing matters officials would prefer to keep secret.

Of course, there must be limits on what should be published. For example, the media should not directly cause the death of people or reveal actions under way that directly affect national security.

Assange's supporters see him as a member of the free press.  To hold government accountable, they find it acceptable to publish stolen documents.  Otherwise, government could shield itself behind a claim of secrecy.

The father of the concept that people have the right to break the law for a higher purpose was Henry David Thoreau, a Massachusetts man who inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.  He accepted that, if caught in a violation of law, a person might have to pay the penalty, even going to jail. 

The federal government has not charged Assange with a crime for publishing secrets.  Instead, he is charged with assisting Manning in breaking the law by stealing documents.  His supporters believe that even that action is protected by freedom of the press.  Assange believes he cannot get a fair trial in the U.S.

The legal war in London about turning Assange over to American justice may continue for years.  If he faces a court in the U.S., the system will be tested to see that he gets a fair trial.

But there's more.  Assange strongly dislikes the U.S. and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate. As an independent journalist, he is certainly entitled to criticize and embarrass both.

American intelligence agencies and the media have found that Russia tried illegally to influence the presidential election, favoring Donald Trump and opposing Clinton.  The Russians hacked the computers of the Democratic National Committee and obtained information that could harm the Clinton effort.

The Russians, well aware of Assange's opinions, turned the information over to Wikileaks.  That organization knew that it was relying on a source trying to undermine the American system of government, but published the hacked emails.

Assange and Wikileaks allowed their status as independent news providers to be exploited by knowingly helping the Russians' anti-American moves.  At that point, they shed their independence and became weapons in a war by one government against another.  In doing so, they may have lost their right to be considered journalists.

It remains unclear if Assange will ever be held accountable for assisting the Russian scheme.  If his actions are rated as just plain old journalism, public confidence in the media, already battered, will suffer even more.  Loss of independent scrutiny of government is a serious danger to the American system of government.

Faced with groups like Wikileaks, the government and others, like the Democrats, must also show greater discipline. Electronic communication is not absolutely secure and may never be.  People must recognize that any electronic message may find its way to the public.

Of course, there will be real secrets that need to be better protected.  How?

Commit less to writing.  Use more voice communication and faxes, which are far more secure than the Internet.  Avoid unimportant electronic communication, because what may seem trivial could turn out to be sensitive or open to distortion.

Above all, Americans should insist that their leaders disclose more and not hide behind the walls of secrecy they build.  But they will always need a free and independent press.

Trump seeks to end independent Fed

Gordon L. Weil

Remember the Great Recession of 2008? 

Thanks to prosperity since then, memory may have faded.  The steady growth in the American economy is largely the result of two-fisted government action by the president and the Federal Reserve.  They each used different tools.

Increased spending on public projects can help turn the economy around.  It pumps money into directly creating jobs, which produce even more jobs as the new income ripples through the country.

Soon after taking office, President Obama succeeded in getting Congress to adopt an economic stimulus that reached $831 billion.  Tax cuts were a big part of the package, along with building roads and other public facilities.  Some went to social benefit programs.  New federal debt paid the bill.

A GOP Congress denied Obama any more stimulus spending, but later it was willing to add to the public debt by adopting more tax cuts.  President Trump signed off on them, and the recovery continued.

The stimulus alone would not have brought the strong recovery.  Much of the sustained work was handled by the Federal Reserve.  On its own, it lowered interest rates, making borrowing easier for new homes and business expansion.

The Fed also stepped up lending to banks, so they could more easily offer mortgages and money for economic development.  By lowering interest rates and making more debt available, it used its powers to aid the economy.

Created in 1913, the Fed has mandates to fight inflation, when prices and interest rates rise too quickly, and to promote job creation.  Its moves affect all other banks and it serves as the federal government's bank, making it the central bank.  Other countries also have central banks.

The U.S. central bank is meant to operate outside of political control.  Its board members are appointed for 14 year terms.  The long terms are intended to insulate the Board, which receives no taxpayer funding, keeping it independent of the politics of the day.

The president and Congress may want the Fed to promote easy money, allowing them to take credit when running for reelection.  They are likely to be less concerned about long-term effects, whatever the Fed's responsibility.

When he was running for reelection in 1972, President Nixon induced the Fed chair to lower interest rates.  That produced a short-term push to the economy but led to huge inflation that hit under President Carter.

Now having slashed interest rates and bought enormous amounts of debt to beat the Great Recession, the Fed has few tools left to combat another downturn.  You cannot cut rates to stimulate the economy when they are already low. 

So the Fed has begun trying to rearm itself by gradually raising rates and reducing the amount of bank debt it holds.  By returning to normal levels, it will later be able to make cuts to help recovery in case of another downturn.  It has been going slowly, because there is little inflation.

Trump has promised great economic growth.  While he can take some of the credit for the sustained recovery, he wants levels of growth that would be unusually high.  This year, he is not achieving his goals, which probably would have eluded any president or policy.

He blames the failure to reach high growth rates on the Fed, including Jerome Powell, his own appointee as chair.  Trump believes that raising rates, even slowly and slightly, hampers the achievement of his forecast growth.  It's obvious he dislikes the Fed's independent monetary policy.

He scorns Powell, admitting he is "stuck" with the Fed chief, but keeps up his pressure.  Powell resists resigning.  But he has led the Fed to back off plans for more small rate boosts.

Trump has picked candidates for two open slots on the Board.  Stephen Moore is a political commentator with no academic or business background to help him with the complexities of monetary policy.  Herman Cain is a businessman who shows no understanding of the Fed.  Both have made misstatements about the Fed.

Trump's economics are misguided, designed only to win him an election, and his appointees, both Trump loyalists, would vote to decrease rates.  Nobody would worry about post-election inflation. 

The Fed committee that makes policy has 12 members.  So these appointees could not themselves change interest rates.  But they could politicize the Fed.

Congress created the Fed as an independent body.  It was meant to keep the economy on a steady course, not subject to political swings.

Will the Republican Senate refuse to confirm political appointees or appease Trump in hopes he will lead the GOP to electoral victory?

GOP deploys political "bluff" on Green New Deal

Gordon L. Weil

The country has been treated to a classic case of political theater, and few even knew about it.

People missed the cynical drama staged by Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mainly because much of the media spread what amounted to "fake" news.

The story began in January when some newly elected House Democrats launched a proposal dubbed "the Green New Deal."  The "New Deal" was meant to echo the broad social legislation enacted to combat the Great Depression in the 1930s.  The new version would bring sweeping economic and environmental action.

The proposals were ambitious and idealistic, reflecting deep concern about the deterioration of the environment and the income gap.  Opponents immediately ridiculed them, claiming they would outlaw everything from airplanes to cows' farts.

While it was obvious the proposals were a set of lofty objectives, backed by Senate Democrats running for president, they lacked detail.  They proposed no funding and aimed for success in ten years, which was clearly impossible.  Critics would claim they were impractical or would harm the economy.

No member of Congress expected that the Green New Deal could be adopted before the 2020 elections.  Some Democrats hoped to see if it could get the party on record in support of its goals.  Many others were wary of endorsing extreme and controversial proposals. 

Republicans relished the prospect of a split among Democrats and the possibility of being able to box the Democrats into a politically vulnerable endorsement of the proposal.  To them, the Green New Deal was not a challenge, but an opportunity.

McConnell himself proposed the Green New Deal bill in the Senate.  Republicans staged a symbolic floor debate to exaggerate and lampoon it.  The GOP leader had made sure that there would be no committee hearings on the bill and no possibility for other senators to amend it.

He then scheduled his bill for what has been called a "bluff vote."  Though the Republicans had proposed the bill, they really opposed it and would seek to kill it.  That was their bluff.  They apparently hoped that some Democrats, to please the party's most liberal wing, would err and vote for the proposal, causing an internal party split.

A couple of weeks ago, the bill was brought before the Senate.  Under today's practices, the Senate would first have to vote to end debate before the bill itself would be considered.  If the GOP blocked ending debate, the bill would theoretically remain alive.  In fact, it would be buried. 

The GOP could use this stealthy move to vote against their own bill without going on record in opposition to its lofty goals. 

The Democrats countered by deciding simply to vote "present" when their names were called.  In that way, they could avoid falling for the bluff.  With no favorable votes and not enough votes to end debate, the bill would effectively be permanently shelved.

Everybody knew the script.  The vote on cutting off debate followed predictable lines.  All Republicans voted against ending debate and Democrats, except for four, voted "present."

Three of the four were Democrats elected in normally Republican states.  Their votes, throw-aways because they did not affect the outcome, might help them burnish their credentials with GOP voters back home.

The fourth senator was Maine's Angus King.  He is an independent member of the Senate but is aligned with the Democrats.  He objected to the Green New Deal as being impractical, as did the Republicans and some Democrats, but he also objected to McConnell's bluff strategy.  Still, as an independent, he could vote this time with the GOP.

Then, the media coverage hid the whole unseemly ploy.  Virtually all news reports said the Senate had voted down the Green New Deal.  It surely would have done so if there had been a real vote, but the media downplayed or ignored that, above all, this was a "bluff vote" designed to split the Democrats.

No news reports noted the lack of the normal legislative consideration that would happen if the bill was taken seriously.  The media allowed the GOP to get away with its bit of theater.  It made no effort to explain what was in the bill or the reasoning behind it. 

In school, students may be taught how laws are made in the federal government.  The formal system described in the schoolroom is gone, replaced by the kind of tactics used on the Green New Deal.  Can you find that fact in the evening news?

When government doesn't work, people may be angry.  But they often don't know why.