Beware of polls, promises, and pundits in presidential campaign

Gordon L. Weil

It looks like the 2020 presidential election is just about over.

Much of the media seems to report that the pre-election polls tell us what we need to know about the candidates. The pundits forecast just what the winner will do after taking office.

Have polls, promises, and pundits settled matters more than 13 months before we vote? That would leave no chance for a candidate to stumble or any event in those months to change the result.

The outlook could be really boring. But there's good reason not to accept the political speculation.

Polls use a sample of the voting population to find out what voters think. To be reliable, polls should be based on a random sample of the whole population. But most people won't respond to polls. Pollsters adjust the results. In many polls, people select themselves, departing completely from a random sample.

A poll tells us what would happen if the election were held today. But the election won't be held for months, so why discount the effects of the campaigns and future events? Besides, who even knows if the questionnaire is fair? Few of us can see if the questions are neutral.

Despite all this, the Democrats use polls to screen out their debate participants. They also screen based on the amount of money candidates have raised. That virtually invites billionaires to run and exalts the role of money in politics.

How are voters supposed to judge candidates? By their promises and programs. If candidates differ on national health insurance or gun laws, voters are expected to believe that a candidate's promises are what we will get if they are elected.

That seems to be what the candidates want us to believe. We never hear them say, "This is what I will propose and, if elected, I will work with both parties in Congress to come as close as possible to achieving this policy." Of course, that's the most we can expect.

Recent history has shown a president will be lucky to make any progress, especially if the White House and the majority in one house of Congress are controlled by different parties.

We distrust government because politicians don't keep promises. But voters ought to remember that presidents and Congress need to agree, making keeping promises virtually impossible.

The myth that a candidate's promises produce presidential results is heavily promoted by political pundits. And they insert themselves directly by their analyses.

In a single debate statement, a Democratic candidate made the bold claim that he would seek to take back assault rifles. The pundits immediately concluded that all Democratic candidates would be negatively affected by that one candidate's promise. That may be the GOP line, but it's doubtful that anybody knows its effect, if any.

Sitting in their snug studios inside the Washington beltway, pundits profess to know immediately how voters from Maine to Hawaii will react to campaigns and candidates. If nothing else, such a snap analysis is an insult to voters.

Many people aren't yet paying much attention to next year's election. Others may remain open to persuasion at least on some issues. Right now hurricanes and home runs matter more than an election so far away.

That leaves the pundits free to make their picks. President Trump could win with a minority popular vote thanks to the electoral vote, they say. So his popularity with only 40 percent or less of the voters doesn't matter.

Pundits focus on the possible impeachment of Trump and its potential effects. That seems to go well beyond the interests of voters in having Congress get some work done in the remaining 15 months (out of a total of 24) for which it was elected.

The pundits are making their picks, dismissing many Democrats. Can a single debate miscue eliminate a candidate? Trump has shown that some voters will ignore significant defects if they like the results on issues that matter to them.

There are still months of political campaigning ahead. Campaigns take too long, but they cannot be prevented or ignored. Staying on the sidelines, voters are being treated more like sheep, led by so-called experts, than citizens. Voters cannot safely wait until the last few days of political campaigns to think about their choices.

In this historic campaign, voters should not leave it to the media minds. Question their predictions. It's never too soon to get involved, at least by focusing on the candidates and the issues.

Beware of giving too much weight too soon to the three "p's" -- polls, promises, and pundits.

Like British Tories, GOP turns hard right; moderate Collins should challenge Trump

Gordon L. Weil

The future of the Republican Party may be written in London.

The splintering of the British Conservative Party over Brexit looks remarkably similar to what might happen to the Republicans.

The Conservatives, known as Tories, were taken over by right-wing activists and tossed 21 members of Parliament out of the party after they refused to give the Prime Minister a blank check to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union.

U.K. voters had decided to quit the EU, mostly because they opposed more European immigrants and following EU rules.  Right-wing politicians seized on that vote, trying to force the U.K. to "crash out," while ignoring the economic cost and rebuilding barriers between the Republic of Ireland and the U.K.'s Northern Ireland.

They have an even more important political agenda.  They want to eliminate moderates and make the Conservative Party an anti-government, anti-immigrant party, seeking an impossible return to the past glories of the British Empire.  Boris Johnson, the colorful, former mayor of London, became their leader.  He had no Brexit plan.

Britain does not have a written constitution but relies on a collection of common understandings, developed over centuries, about how government is supposed to work.  The Tories split when Johnson abruptly overturned historic practices in a blatant grab for personal control, bypassing Parliament.

Some British wits have remarked that the unwritten constitution is now not even worth the paper it isn't written on.

Leading moderates announced they would put country above party and not support Johnson.  They were almost instantly expelled, meaning they could not run for office as Conservatives and probably ending most of their careers.  Johnson unsuccessfully sought a snap election in which he could seize control and win Conservative seats filled with new right-wingers.

The Conservatives face the opposition Labor Party, whose position is weakened by an unpopular leader, and several smaller parties, expected to gain from the collapse of traditional conservatism.  If enough Conservative voters are turned off by the next elections, Johnson's party could be reduced to a weakened hard-right force.

It's easy to see these events as a close parallel with the Republican Party today.

The GOP in the House of Representatives has been taken over by right-wingers.  The Senate often falls in line with President Trump, thanks to the tight control of Mitch McConnell, its Republican leader.  Like Johnson, he exercises power by overturning historic understandings about how congressional business is done.

At the heart of Republican strategy, thanks to Trump, is an anti-immigrant policy.  The U.S., like the U.K., would block new arrivals.  Like Brexit, his trade policy endangers the economy.

Trump also harks back to the past.  Under the guidance of historical right-wingers, he systematically strips the government of protections covering policies from civil rights to the environment.  He is changing the definition of what it means to be a Republican.

The GOP has also sought to drive out moderates.  Members of Congress must either line up with Trump or face primary challengers.  That can be a losing proposition, because many Republicans loyally support their party's president.

What will happen with traditional Republicans, pro-business and anti-big government, but who do not share the views or methods of Trump and the right-wingers? 

The party may slowly self-destruct as moderates are driven out and more non-whites and liberal youth become voters.  This is beginning to happen, and Democrats are gaining at the expense of Trump Republicans.  The party could survive as a minority, right-wing force.

Alternatively, traditional GOP leaders could try to recapture control of their party.  They could dump McConnell and show an increased willingness to compromise.  Of course, they might risk losing elections, a risk taken by the 21 British Conservatives.

Sen. Susan Collins could lead the resistance to a hard-right takeover.  She's the GOP's leading centrist, willing to seek workable compromises.  Instead of accepting the Trump party line, she could appeal to the endangered GOP mainstream.

Maine Sen. Margaret Chase Smith, Collins' proclaimed role model, courageously spoke out against a dangerous senator and his allies in her own party.  She later became the first woman to seriously seek the presidential nomination of a major party.

If Collins wants to run for office again, she might follow Smith's example and run against Trump for the GOP presidential nomination.  She is better known, with broader appeal, than Trump's three opponents.  A loyal Republican, she could provide a real alternative Trump could not ignore.

At this stage of her career, even losing by vigorously defying Trumpism, she would write more history than by running for re-election as a member of the current GOP.

Despite climate change, renewable energy not 'slam dunk'

Gordon L. Weil

When it comes to climate change and renewable energy, there's some good news, but a lot of bad news.

Most people would probably agree that if we could produce energy without harming the environment and at lower cost than the traditional fuels, we should do it. But we keep running into problems making that virtually impossible. It's no slam dunk.

After the G7 meeting, where he missed the environmental session, President Trump made clear why he opposes measures to deal with climate change. He knows there's a problem, but he has a higher priority than dealing with it.

"I feel the United States has tremendous wealth. The wealth is under its feet." he said. "We can't let that wealth be taken away." Cutting back on fossil fuel use to reduce global warming could undermine America's wealth. The wealth is for today; dealing with climate change is a "dream," left for a later day.

Trump's policy is deeply rooted in the past. He accepts environmental sacrifices as the price to pay for expanding the use of coal, oil and natural gas. This is one of the central elements of his presidency.

Part of that policy continues using the federal tax system to subsidize the oil industry, while cutting back breaks for renewable resources. That's big government at work. Under a conservative approach, the market would pit renewables against fossil fuels in a fair contest.

Another issue involving renewable resources arises in Maine. Central Maine Power proposes the "New England Clean Energy Connect." This transmission line is supposed to carry hydro power from Quebec to the Massachusetts market. Curiously, some of its supporters have opposed more hydro development in Maine.

By contributing to the reduced use of fossil fuels elsewhere, the project may have environmental merit. But the project, using its Maine corridor, also imposes environmental costs, which have not been fully evaluated. The decision thus far has simply been that its claimed benefits are enough to justify it.

In part, support for the corridor is an obvious reaction to Maine's loss of the major off-shore wind generation project proposed by Norway's Statoil, which then successfully moved it to Scotland. It was blocked by Gov. LePage. Now Gov. Mills has said of the new proposal, "We can't say no to every single project."

Maine is a national leader in environmental protection. But its position may be degraded if it looks like it is reducing its concern or can be induced to endorse a project by dubious payments from CMP's parent, which can expect large, ratepayer-funded profits extending far into the future.

CMP will be able to raise its rates at ratepayer expense over the next 40 years, while its annual payments to Maine are fixed and will lose almost all their value over that period.

Let's be realistic. Trump's view prevails while he is president, and oil industry subsidies are unlikely ever to disappear. Mills does not want Maine to be seen as opposing major private-sector projects, especially the first one of her administration, and the corridor could have some environmental benefits.

Besides, middle income people are not gaining in the American economy and renewables raise utility rates – or at least that's what people think. Even the thin CMP payments might help a little.

But look at Los Angeles. Its electric utility, a public power entity, has a large-scale, 25-year contract for solar power, including storage batteries to ensure reliability. According to press reports, customers would pay 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, less than half what Mainers now pay.

The city leadership hasn't yet approved the contract. A major labor union opposes it, arguing it will cost 400 jobs. It rejects statements by city officials that none will be laid off. Union leaders make the false claim that solar is unreliable, despite the batteries.

The Industrial Revolution itself was fought by this kind of objection. Of course, the utility should pursue a policy that does not displace workers. It should work with the union. But change should not be blocked by a backward-looking energy policy, wherever it occurs.

The common thread of Trump's policy, the Maine transmission corridor and even the L.A. solar project is that they are big. Politicians like to land big fish. And if a policy involves transmission, federal policy makes the rewards so great that big-scale projects are avidly pursued.

Yet the future is likely to depend on smaller, decentralized generators, closer to the customers served, probably renewable, less costly and more reliable.

This future requires policies going beyond fossil fuels, but also wisely evaluating big renewable projects.

Growing gaps in wealth, age raise long-term economic threat

Gordon L. Weil

How do you picture the typical American of the future?

A prosperous tech specialist, assured of a challenging and well-paid job in a thriving environment?

Or retired or nearing retirement, living on a tight budget in uncertain health?

Because of two widening gaps – between the wealthy and everybody else and the old and everybody else – the second alternative may turn out to be the more accurate vision of the future.

Maine may be one of the leading examples of at least one of those gaps, the one between a growing senior population and a declining population of young people.

It is the oldest state, based on median age. By next year, it will have more people over 65 than under 18. It is the first state to reach this point. The U.S. as a whole will get there by 2035. What's true for this country is also the case for developed economies around the world.

The reasons are obvious. With increased wealth, people have fewer children per family. Improved medical science helps extend life.

Historically, people had large families, with the younger generation able to support their parents when they aged and stopped working. With short life spans, the period during which such help was needed was relatively brief.

Support from children gradually gave way to employer pensions, Social Security and Medicare. These programs are financed by contributions from profits and taxes from a growing economy. Economic growth itself was driven by more people demanding more goods and services.

As the number of children per family approaches zero population growth – when people only replace themselves and not add to the total number of people – how does the population increase?

People in places where the economy was underdeveloped, forcing them to accept subsistence living, moved to places offering more freedom and opportunity and giving them hope for a better life. Massive immigrant populations moved within countries and among countries.

Large-scale immigration was eventually slowed by restrictive national legislation, aimed at cutting the flow. In the U.S., reduced immigration was offset by the post-World War II baby boom, whose effect is now disappearing.

The growth in the American economy and the country's leading role in the world economy led to greater prosperity. Federal taxation was used to promote economic development as well as to fund government programs designed to meet the needs of older people.

Even as high tax rates were lowered, opposition grew to government spending to ensure that seniors and low-income people could be helped to survive above subsistence levels. In the past three decades, taxes have been cut for the wealthiest end of the population, while workers continue to contribute to income support programs.

The gap between the most wealthy and everybody else has been justified on the basis of the claim that the rich will use their tax-shielded wealth to create new jobs. That theory works to a limited degree, but much of the tax savings goes simply to support the accumulation of increased wealth.

The income gap is a cause of increased political partisanship. While unemployment is now low, incomes have not grown to any significant degree. Because of the uneven rewards, thanks to the tax system, the rich get richer and the rest of the country gets frustrated. Tempers flare and both sides become more rigid.

With a stagnating work force, payroll taxes will not be enough to finance Social Security and Medicare. Wealthier taxpayers are reluctant to see their taxes increased to cover the inevitable shortfalls. Instead, many of them want even more tax cuts and less government.

They argue incorrectly that federal taxes are among the highest in the world. They provide no solutions to meeting the needs of lower-income workers and seniors with less government support. A mass economy like the U.S. cannot rely mainly on charity.

There are solutions. First, tax cutting must stop, especially for the wealthiest. Taxes, not more debt, should pay for what voters need and want .

Congress should adopt an immigration policy, allowing for more new Americans who can contribute to economic growth. The government can ensure that immigrants are capable of working and are not simply seeking public assistance.

Local centers should be developed for older Americans to obtain necessary support and dignity of life based on reasonable costs, pleasant surroundings and economies of scale.

Maine has already shown it can develop into such a center. But the national media reports that it lacks enough young workers to provide care services to the aging population. One obvious answer: immigrants.

States use courts to override president, Congress

Gordon L. Weil 

Last week, Maine joined other states in two federal court cases seeking to overturn Trump Administration moves.

By now, that's routine. States frequently team up to oppose actions by the executive branch. The party doesn't matter. States governed by Democrats challenge President Trump and states governed by Republicans are still chasing President Obama.

The result is a new form of government that they don't teach about in civics class. In fact, it is an entirely new layer of government not foreseen in the Constitution. States directly insert themselves in federal lawmaking and use the courts to approve, reject or even modify the law.

Here's how it works. First, Congress passes a bill, and it is signed by the president. That rarely happens unless the House and Senate majorities and the president belong to the same party.

The bill may allow regulators or an executive agency to issue rules to fill in the details not contained in the bill. Eventually, the rules are issued.

In a state under the control of the minority party in Congress, which had opposed the new law, its attorney general asks a federal court to decide that the law or its rules violate the Constitution. That state is likely to be joined by other states under control of the same minority party.

That action may prompt states supporting the congressional action to band together to enter the case on the other side. The congressional debate is transferred to court.

The case goes to a federal district court, composed of a single judge. The complaining state will try to select a district court where a judge will be sympathetic to its position.

While some may fear that judges make purely political decisions, its easy to forecast their decisions based on their known views or party affiliation. For example, a judge who generally defers to decisions made by the president makes predictable rulings about executive powers.

The district judge's opinion will be appealed. But the complainants may urge the judge to order a delay in the law's effective date until the appeals are completed. That could keep it from being applied for many months or even years. In short, a single judge can frustrate the will of Congress or the president.

Federal judges serve for life, and a president and supportive Senate will try to get people onto the bench who represent their partisan views. Remaining on the bench for decades, they can block laws adopted years later by the other party, when it is in power.

The case may eventually work its way from the district court through an appeals court to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nine justices, appointed for life, or really only a five-judge majority of them, have the last word on the law.

Take the decision on the Affordable Care Act. The Court ruled it is constitutional by a vote of 5-4. Some states are again challenging it in hopes that the Supreme Court, with a couple of new Trump appointees, might change its mind.

Justices are supposed to respect the Court's previous decisions to ensure that people can rely on them in the future. But as the political makeup of the Court changes over time, this principle is increasingly ignored.

Thus, federal laws may be challenged, suspended for long periods or blocked by states linked with the losing side in Congress. A law properly adopted by Congress may be overturned by the swing vote of a single Supreme Court justice, in office for life after having been confirmed by a Senate majority of as little as one vote.

The mere fact that Maine can join two multi-state federal appeals in a single week is a good indication of how routine this new form government decision-making has become.

This "states plus courts" decision-making can deprive the president and Congress of their constitutional roles. In effect, this process is an addition to the intended "checks and balances" of the Constitution. It overrides them.

Congress could limit the powers of courts, but that's unlikely. Voters have the only power to stop this process.

Few voters pay attention to how candidates for president or senator would handle judicial appointments, except perhaps positions on a wedge issue like abortion. Do voters recognize that a state attorney-general, elected either directly or indirectly, as in Maine, can have a major influence on federal laws?

This form of lawmaking usually escapes the public view. It's time for voters and the media to pay more attention to this almost invisible, but considerable, power.

'Invasion' claim based on belief that immigrants would 'replace' Americans

Gordon L. Weil

Is America facing an invasion?

The right-wing forces in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 thought so. The El Paso shooter thought so. Fox News commentators think so. President Trump thinks so.

The "invaders" are people arriving at the border, trying to become immigrants. Some opponents claim their real intent is to undermine America.

If you thought they only seek refuge here, you may have missed what their furious critics see. You may have been puzzled by the chant of the Virginia crowd: "You shall not replace us," they yelled. "Jews shall not replace us."

Their tirade was not merely an overly dramatic way of warning unwanted immigrants. It was an expression of a new theory with old roots, called the "Great Replacement."

This theory claims that a conspiracy exists to "replace" white people with black and brown people. Europe and North America would end up dominated by people of color who would most likely segregate white people.

The latest version of this theory comes from France, somewhat cleaned up. Its author dropped claims that replacement is a Jewish plot or white people are necessarily superior – the core belief of "white supremacy."

This theory cannot be dismissed as simply the dream of a small group of right-wing "kooks." The German composer Richard Wagner, who inspired Hitler, and France's World War II leader Charles de Gaulle, who fought Hitler, both believed it.

"I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion," Wagner wrote. For him, the invaders were Jews. For de Gaulle, the invaders were Muslims.

In Europe, countries prided themselves on their distinct, national cultures. With few immigrants, they could maintain a "pure" identity. Their cultures unified people. Emphasizing national uniqueness and superiority allowed rulers to take people's minds off their poor economic condition.

The history of the U.S. differs from countries like Germany, France or even Britain. This country was created by waves of immigrants. On arrival, many faced discrimination by those who themselves had earlier passed from being refugees to become citizens.

There have always been people who wanted to pull the ladder up after themselves. Each wave of immigrants faced opposition to their free entry into America, though all became Americans. But anti-immigrant sentiment grew and, in 1924, a tough new immigration law was passed.

That law gave those former immigrants already in the country the belief that they could maintain what was the special American culture. The common culture was not so much based on centuries of history but on a selfish sense of liberty.

There was one obvious problem. Many in the American population had never been immigrants. They did not cross seas to gain entry into a country intending to deny them the pursuit of liberty. They did not ask to come. They were Africans, slaves.

Some advocates of the Great Replacement theory may have historical links to the white people who imported black people to work their fields. There was no international plot to replace whites.

All Americans are of immigrant or slave stock, clear evidence that replacement theory has no place in America. Its advocates use it to dress up their effort to exclude non-white immigrants who would supposedly undermine a society built by white people.

African-Americans and each wave of immigrants have changed the culture of the country. Possibly, the only American culture that remains constant is found in the Declaration of Independence and the amended Constitution. They embody America's values.

James Baldwin, a notable American writer and an African-American, once wrote of how the country needed to develop, if there were to be domestic peace. He urged "a consciousness of others." The culture of each group should become part of the culture of all.

The result would be a national culture, always changing, that could not be used as a barrier against new arrivals. National strength came from a continual process of adding to the culture without claiming racial supremacy.

There has been one obvious case of the Great Replacement on this continent. When white men invaded, people were already here. Deploying more powerful weapons and greater numbers, Europeans replaced Indians.

The victors seized the territory of the defeated. They forced Indian children into schools intended to eliminate their languages and culture. Invasion led to replacement.

Invasion is an act of war. Talking now of invasion is war talk, beyond racism or even "domestic terrorism." Pleasing the crowd, Trump may not even realize the implications when he speaks of "invasion."

The 22 dead in El Paso were war victims. This is serious.

Congress should recapture the powers it gave to president

Gordon L. Weil

Last week, a Washington Post editorial cartoon showed an elderly couple celebrating a man's birthday. Nice.

His name is "U.S. Constitution." His wife tells him, "Some people are whispering about whether you are too old for the job."

A lot has changed since he was born in 1787. But the Constitution has stopped being updated and amended for fear that changing anything in it may open the way to repealing some its best parts, like the First Amendment.

Though some people, calling themselves "originalists," want the Constitution to be interpreted just as written centuries ago, it has changed and will keep on changing.

Take the president. The Constitution's drafters worried about the power of the new chief executive, because of America's harsh treatment under the British king. So they gave Congress the first seat in government and supplied it with the ability to place checks on the president.

Could they have imagined that the power of Congress "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" would result in it turning over to the president complete authority to raise and lower tariffs on billions of dollars in trade? That's what happened.

Could they have imagined that a president, elected by less than half the voters, would pack the federal courts with partisan allies, giving them lifetime appointments subject only to automatic approval by a Senate majority representing less than half the people? That has happened.

The American president is closer to being king than the constitutional drafters wanted.

Meanwhile, American voters came to play a larger role in the system of government. National issues like slavery, world wars, and economic depression with news of them spread by better communications led to broad expressions of public opinion that could not be ignored.

Constitutional change without changing the Constitution. That's the theme of the past three columns in this series. The proposed changes would increase the ability of Congress to better check the presidency and strengthen the power of popular democracy over the federal government.

The proposals are (1) to increase the size of the House of Representatives, (2) to ensure that Senate majorities include senators representing half the population, and (3) the election of the president by national popular vote. The governing rule: one person, one vote.

In a deeply partisan system, these measures would at least ensure that federal decisions are made by leaders – from the powerful president to the rawest representative – who represent a majority of Americans.

These changes would make compromise necessary, reducing partisan wars. The people demand decisions from their government, which is only possible through compromise. The system itself is threatened if government cannot make decisions the people support.

Beyond these modest reforms of federal institutions to make them responsive to the will of the majority, members of Congress themselves can restore constitutional checks and balances.

While voters may give low marks to a president, they have almost completely lost confidence in Congress. Its popularity in the latest survey is 17 percent. People may like their own senator or representative, but they dislike Congress.

Why? Their representatives and senators help resolve personal government problems, bring in federal money and show up at local events. But Congress does little. Its members often avoid responsibility by shifting it to the president and bureaucracy. They seek to get re-elected by leaving few fingerprints.

The fact that the Senate won't ratify a treaty on any subject clearly makes the point. President Obama joined with other world leaders in an agreement to forestall Iran's nuclear development. It was not a treaty, allowing senators to avoid taking a position on it. And Obama avoided rejection of the deal.

That made it easy for President Trump to withdraw from the agreement. He simply made use of the power the Senate ceded to Obama rather than keeping for itself. Trump repeatedly uses powers previously granted to presidents, but without observing the understandings about their use Congress thought it had.

The most important goal for many members of Congress is getting re-elected. They avoid taking leadership and pander to the lowest common denominator to hold onto their seats. They cater to interest groups that finance their campaigns. Such groups exist mostly to oppose government action.

Political leadership means taking risks, even the risk of losing re-election. The problem is that members regard being in Congress as their permanent profession and not as a limited period of public service.

The first reform is for Congress to recover its lost powers, carelessly given to the president, and stop the practice. That reform should start now.

Note: This is the fourth and last of a series on how to reform the federal government without amending the Constitution.