Trump, master of 'whataboutism'

 

America has a bad case of "whataboutism." Here's how it works.

Democrats say: President Trump has completely bungled the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump answers: What about the way Obama-Biden mishandled the swine flu?

Conclusion: The Democrats screwed up the swine flu years ago, making their criticism of Trump's handling of Covid-19 false.

In another case:

Former Vice President Biden: You should condemn white supremacy.

Trump: What about your friends, the liberals and antifa? They are the bigger problem.

Conclusion: The extreme left is worse than the extreme right, so I don’t need to condemn white extremism.

Whataboutism has been around for a long time. It is a slick way to answer a charge with a countercharge, dodging the original criticism. These days with Trump, to paraphrase the old movie line about love, the result is, "Being president means never having to say you're sorry."

The ploy helps people worried by the charge, but who want to justify their continued support. It gets them off the hook, when they can ignore the charge and keep on backing the accused for their own reasons.

Trump who continually plays to his core constituency finds whataboutism a useful tool. Just as important, he may induce other, unwary people to see the original criticism as an unfair attack on him, possibly leading to their support.

Whataboutism has two flaws.

The more obvious problem is that, while the original charge may be true, the countercharge is not true. But it is stated which such conviction and as a balancing argument against the truth, so that it, too, sounds like the truth.

Take the virus debate. Covid-19 has been the cause of death of more than 220,000 people in the U.S. We still have no way of knowing when it will have run its course and how many victims it will ultimately claim. The early, disorganized response to it was left largely to the states.

The 2009 swine flu pandemic took 12,500 lives in the U.S., an impact similar to the annual flu. Under President Obama, there was a federal response from the first outbreak.

Conclusion: Both pandemics were harmful, but not strictly comparable. Certainly the answer to the charge about dealing with Covid-19 was not a countercharge about the earlier, far less harmful and well-managed pandemic.

As for right- and left-wing extremists, Trump fails to condemn white supremacists, who have formed organized militant groups, some supporting him. Biden has condemned extremism on both sides. The FBI states that antifa (short for "anti-fascist") is not a group but a protest movement.

To obscure his failure to use the term "white supremacy," at 29:39 minutes into the presidential debate Trump charged that Biden refuses to say the words "law enforcement." He still makes that charge. Yet twice, at 30:59 and 37:54 into the debate, Biden did use the term.

The second flaw is that, even if Trump were correct, two wrongs don't make a right. Suppose his criticism of Democrats is accurate. While their actions might be worthy of criticism, how does that relieve him of responsibility for his own actions?

If whataboutism were accepted as a political defense, the obvious result would be the elimination of any standards of public behavior. Each act would become a precedent excusing later acts as being no worse. All it would take to start the ball rolling downhill would be the first act.

Here, Trump is the master. He sets new low standards in political behavior unmatched in American presidential history. The risk is that they will become the baseline for more whataboutism.

In his furious response to the vice presidential debate, he asserted that Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, is a Communist. Communism is a bit outdated as the principal U.S. adversary, perhaps showing senior citizen Trump's frame of reference. But it is a serious charge. 

No top-of-the-ticket candidate has ever charged that the opposing national ticket included a Communist. Trump set a new low.

Trump has failed to disclose his tax returns and medical reports, falling below the standards followed by the last eight presidents. This is a new standard without any reasonable justification.

Medical information about the effect of experimental drugs or a mood-altering steroid on a man with the nuclear weapon trigger is important to the public. If they have no effect, tell us. And his health condition could legitimately influence how people vote.

In 2016, he expressed willingness to release his tax returns, though he imposed phony conditions, but he still fights tenaciously to keep them secret even from law enforcement. Did he lie in his first campaign?

His record-setting number of lies has set an impressively low standard for whataboutism. Any future president could lie regularly, while claiming, "What about Trump?"

Elections have consequences: four hidden effects this year

 

When people vote, they pick candidates. That's what elections are all about.

Not really. This year, there are least four hidden elections taking place.

The push to put a new conservative on the Supreme Court before Election Day makes the presidential vote a referendum on that effort, perhaps after the fact. If Joe Biden and a Democratic Senate emerge as winners, they could consider their victory as a mandate to quickly rebalance the Court.

President Trump has pushed his authority to overturn actions by regulatory agencies that are supposed to be independent, making them just another part of his administration. The presidential election could lead to their recovering their lawful, independent powers.

That would mean environmental, banking and many other rules could be recovered. Plus, federal inspectors general could be restored to their independent authority. That is what's just behind the presidential ballot.

Then, there's the Senate. If the Republicans hold on, expect continued roadblocks for the Democrats. If the Democrats gain control, they might use GOP methods. Their judicial appointments could sail through. But more than the courts are in play. All top federal officials are subject to confirmation. 

The big question is whether the Democrats would halt the GOP's ability to kill their bills by ending the filibuster, which now means many bills need 60 votes. If so, they could take advantage of their potential control of government and make major policy changes.

The Senate balance is now in question. Analysts give the Democrats a good chance of holding 51 or even 52 seats out of 100. That would include a Democratic gain in Maine.

Though campaigns focus on issues from health care to taxes, the big issue is which party controls the Senate. On that vote, all senators remain loyal to their party. So, in voting for senator, Mainers and others are really making a broad policy decision on government, more than on candidates' promises on specific issues.

The House of Representatives is a little more complicated. It now has a large Democratic majority, which is likely to be preserved.

If election challenges or inconclusive ballot counting prevent either presidential candidate from receiving the required 270 electoral votes by January 3, the new House could elect the president.

Members vote by state and the single vote for each state is determined by its House delegation. The two Maine House members would have the same weight as California's huge delegation. Today, with two Democrats, Maine would vote for Biden, but the new House would decide.

Right now, despite the Democratic majority, Republicans control most of the state delegations in the House. That gives congressional races in small states, including Maine, particular importance in determining the state majority.

The fourth hidden vote will be for state legislatures. Under the Constitution, state legislatures elected this year will be responsible for redrawing the congressional district lines resulting from the census. In each state, the districts must have the same population.

Some states have moved toward leaving the task to independent, nonpartisan commissions, but many congressional districts are drawn subject to statehouse politics. In states like Texas, political gerrymandering has created incredibly shaped districts, designed to limit the seats held by Democrats or minorities.

Few voters may be aware that their legislative ballots will influence the state's congressional representation. In some states, reapportionment could produce major shifts in the composition of House delegations for the next ten years.  

In Maine, the two congressional districts are far from as compact as possible. They appear to represent a political compromise that gives the Republicans the chance to win a seat. That situation could change as population grows in the southern part of the state. It might take two-thirds of the Legislature to redraw the lines.

Beyond these four hidden votes, another issue surrounds this year's elections – the elections themselves.

Since becoming president, Trump has attacked the security of the electoral system, though he provided no provable evidence that it is vulnerable. Cheating is possible in any human activity. Trump has turned that obvious truth into a claim that, if cheating could happen, it does happen.

With elections stretching back over two centuries, no evidence exists that cheating has been much of a problem. To support Trump's claim, more than mere assertion is required. Otherwise, the intent of the claim is suspect.

If Trump-Pence loses the election, their campaign seems ready to rely on the suspicion the president has created to try to nullify the results.

States should keep good records on the safety of polling places and all types of remote voting and vote counting. The data must be strong enough to quickly persuade a court.

The rest is up to voters. Vote.

 

Supreme Court debate ignores history

 

History seems to go back no further than the memory of the person reciting it.

Bad recall dominates the debate whether President Trump should have left the choice of the next Supreme Court justice to the next presidential term – his or Biden's.

Democrats say that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell broke tradition by blocking the Senate from considering President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland because it was an election year so the choice should have been left to the next president. He didn't.

Republicans say that the Senate controlled by the party opposing the president's has traditionally disapproved his election year nominations. They're wrong.

A close look at history reveals that there is no set pattern to guide the current situation.

A definition: An election year includes the 11 months before a November election and the time between the election and the presidential inauguration early the following year, originally in March but now in January.

A president can nominate a justice at any time in their four-year term. Andrew Jackson nominated two justices on the day before he left office. He was sure his successor would push through his nominees.

According to U.S. Senate data, there have been 39 nominees to the Court in an election year. Of them 21 were confirmed by the Senate, 16 were rejected and three were withdrawn for other reasons.

Among the 16, only two were made by presidents selected by the voters on Election Day. John Tyler became the "accidental president" when the chief executive died one month into his term. Tyler had no support from either party. He made nine election year nominations and eight, half of the total rejected, were killed.

Similarly, Milliard Fillmore, who succeeded a deceased president, named three and failed on all, as did two other similar presidents. Only two full-term presidents, James Buchanan, until now rated as the worst president, and Obama saw their election year nominees fail.

Some Republicans say it was normal for Obama to fail, because the Senate was controlled by the GOP in an election year. Still, in 1888, a GOP Senate confirmed Democratic President Grover Cleveland's pick of Bowdoin graduate Melville Fuller as chief justice, and then Cleveland lost the election.

Democrats complain that Garland did not get a Senate hearing, even if he were going to be rejected. That had happened six times previously for Tyler-type presidents. Perhaps the GOP, like Trump, thought Obama was a usurper who deserved no better treatment.

The Supreme Court has become heavily partisan since 1994 and the GOP's conservative manifesto, "Contract with America." Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the last nominee overwhelmingly approved. Since then, confirmation has been fought along party lines.

Still, it is unwise to assume the long-term effect of a judicial appointment. Justices, laws and popular values change over time and, insulated from short-term political pressure, justices may develop opinions different from when they were appointed.

A Kennedy appointee turned out far more conservative than foreseen. One of G.H.W. Bush's picks was surprisingly liberal.

One Wall Street Journal early report about Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett said: "Here's what her confirmation would mean for the future of American law." Not so. Nobody knows for sure what American law will be in coming decades.

Some Democrats are lashing out against the prospect of a Court with a conservative majority made possible by McConnell's tactics. 

One proposal would impose term limits on federal judges. That's prevented by the Constitution. 

If the Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate, they might enlarge the Court to tip the balance. There's a precedent for changing the size of the Court for partisan purposes. 

When Republicans blocked Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, from making any Court appointments in the 1860s, they cut the Court to seven justices. Without vacancies left for him to fill, nothing happened, and the Court returned to nine.

Without permanently adding justices, Democrats could authorize temporary slots, as previously described in this column. That could restore some balance, while not changing the number of justices. It's long been done for other federal courts.

Congress can also define the Court's jurisdiction, taking certain matters away from its control. And it can legislate better, especially on health care, leaving less room for Court interpretation.

If the GOP succeeds, a majority of American voters may be disappointed, having preferred the Court pick to be left to the next president. But voters usually pay little attention to Court appointments in presidential and Senate elections.

To counter or reverse Trump-McConnell judicial moves and also to reduce the chances of post-election challenges, the Court issue could help bring out a bigger Democratic vote and a strong Biden-Senate victory.

 

Maine could become “remote work state” in new economy

Gordon L. Weil

In a remote work-from-home economy, nobody is more remote than others.

Maybe that's good news for Maine, which has been penalized by its relatively remote location. If remote work takes off, as seems highly possible, Maine might see its competitive disadvantage greatly reduced.

It is too soon to know how the remote economy will develop, but the crisis provides an opportunity to promote it. The so-called New Economy might not equal the Industrial Revolution, but it could mark a historic change in economic life.

Two seemingly conflicting interests exist. Widespread concern about public health and personal risk has led to governments and individuals to reduce normal economic activity. At the same time, many people are anxious to return rapidly to their former life as soon as possible. The need to generate income through economic activity is undeniable.

Many states, including Maine, imposed tough protective measures, and now all states have begun loosening them. Governors have two goals: acquiescing in demands from some residents and allowing as much economic activity as seems prudent.

Some leaders, apparently including President Trump, motivated by unrealistic optimism and possible political advantage, advocate virtually complete relaxation of protective measures – opening the economy.

In states where relaxing protection has meant significant reopening, the number of cases has increased. The increase in Maine cases may be driven by better case reporting or outbreaks in group homes, but the effect of opening probably counts as well. The message is clearly that to reopen requires a new approach.

Businesses themselves have begun to move to the new economy. Companies like Facebook, Twitter and Shopify have announced that, after the crisis, they will continue to have many employees work from home.

The Wall Street Journal notes that many workers want to get back to the office, “but there will certainly be a growing class of workers who will never set foot in an office again, a profound change with unknown implications.”

Much work, even in an office, is carried out independently, but not all. Nobody will manufacture cars without people working together in a factory. Also, creativity can be stimulated by occasional face-to-face meetings.

The issue of social contact in not fully understood. Some observers claim that people need social contact, while other claim that the famous water cooler conversations are a waste of time. Zoom seems to be proving that electronics can go a long way as a face-to-face social substitute.

In the end, if many people worry about the health risks of viruses, their reluctance to return to crowded work spaces may be the key element in promoting remote work. More people will both work and shop from home.

The move away from the central workplace is certain to improve air quality and reduce wasteful commuting. Businesses' costs of operation can be reduced.

Facing these obvious advantages is the natural unwillingness to change. Excuses will be found to resist it. Remember that people threw their wooden shoes, called sabots, into the machine gears to try to undermine the Industrial Revolution. The result: sabotage, but not success.

Federal and state governments can promote remote work to stimulate change as the economy emerges from the economic doldrums caused by the coronavirus.

Instead of merely sending survival money to unemployed Americans, Congress could adopt a modified version of the European approach. Many governments there subsidize companies to retain employees on the payroll, keeping down unemployment payments. The twist would be that this kind of aid would go only to companies creating remote work opportunities. This would transform public assistance into economic development.

With the economy essentially restarting using a significantly new design, Maine economic development could suffer less from the state's remote location.

The state could seize what is called “first mover advantage” and, ahead of others, promote itself as the prime “remote work state.” The quality of life is well known and could be promoted as the ideal place for working from home. More young people could stay in the state or move to Maine.

Of course, the state would have come to terms with upgrading its electronic network to high-speed communication. It could also offer incentives to businesses that could assist remote work across the country, including by setting up training programs at the community colleges. Education could add a focus on remote work management.

Major national operations would no longer have to bypass Maine because of its location. Some will be looking to move operations from abroad back to the US. With lower costs than many other parts of the country, Maine could be attractive, especially if it gave itself a distinct economic identity, linked to the new economy.

Remote work is an inevitable part of the American economic future. It's a part where Maine can be a key player.

Covid-19 messages: scientists warn, but Trump still seeks 'miracle'

Gordon L. Weil

On Covid-19, Americans have been misled, lied to and confused.

In a crisis, people need clear, concise and authoritative messages from leadership. This crisis has lacked that.

At one extreme are politicians who put their careers ahead of the public good. At the other end are scientists, who must try to explain their complex work. In the middle are governors who seek to protect both public health and diverse state economies.

At the outset, President Trump dismissed the Covid-19 threat, because it threatened the booming economy on which his reelection depended. His ignorant assurances allowed the virus to spread unopposed. At this point, he may been engaging less in outright lying than in wishful thinking.

When it became obvious that Trump's “miracle” would not occur and the disease would keep spreading, Trump's new hope was that a ready cure would quickly stop it. Without evidence, he began to tout one medication after another.

The problem was that some proposed cures could be worse than the virus and might even cost lives. Though hydroxycholoquine carried warnings, Trump doubled down on advocating the drug and began taking it. “What harm can it do?” he asked. It could cause fatal irregular heartbeats.

Serious scientists were more truthful. Their warnings about the onset of the virus were ignored by the White House. Their efforts have focused on the need to stop the spread by protective measures and the time-consuming and detailed effort to find a drug to treat the virus and develop a vaccine.

Science has rules, because it produces facts. The rules require great care in order to provide great certainty. “Do no harm” is the first rule of medicine, so scientists must avoid rushing to conclusions that could mislead or, even worse, cause harm.

Politicians have fewer rules and produce fewer facts. That makes them impatient with scientists. In a crisis as big as Covid-19, the conflict breaks into the open. Unscrupulous politicians accuse scientists of having political motives, perhaps because they think everybody does.

Scientists do not usually lie or intentionally mislead. That puts them at a disadvantage in a political world. They must do their best not to alienate political leaders while defending their findings.

Trump's followers soon began to distrust them, because they did not follow the president's lead. They were politicized by their critics, some of whom argued that they lied to support the Democrats. Eventually, they faced a wave of politically inspired phony science.

Congress tried to save the situation. It appeared to believe that pouring out trillions of dollars would fund necessary research and reduce economic dislocation. But it put funds into the hands of Covid deniers or favored firms who could dip their hands into the cash flow as it passed to its supposed recipients.

Many Americans believed the fine promises and thought that massive federal spending would help them. Many are still waiting. They learned that even members of Congress who wanted to help them were misleading them and perhaps themselves.

Between the vast flood of federal misinformation and scientists who provide unwelcome forecasts are governors who are left with trying to protect their populations. But they also have to find ways to avoid protective measures destroying their economies.

While they struggle to find the right policy balance, they may send confusing messages. Increasingly, they have lined up by political party. Most Republican governors are more aggressive about reducing protection, repackaged as “opening” the economy, than are Democrats. Perhaps they reflect the political will of the more conservative states they serve.

One political rule is “when in doubt, don't do it.” A majority of people, confused and probably fearful, are not “opening” as fast as Trump and his supporters would like.

In the absence of clear and consistent presidential leadership, governors are left to develop policies for

both vulnerable people and local business. Most of them are probably sincere in their efforts and try to suit their constituency.

But the careful efforts of almost all governors of both parties have returned the crisis, in one view, back to the point where it began – from “miracle” to “magic.”

"And they [Democratic governors] think they're taking away Donald Trump's greatest tool, which is being able to go into an arena and fill it with 50,000 people every single time, right?” said Eric Trump, the president's son.

"So they will and you watch. They'll milk it every single day between now and November 3, and guess what? After November 3, coronavirus will magically all of a sudden go away and disappear and everybody will be able to reopen."

At last do we have a clear, concise and even hopeful statement on Covid-19?