Trump allies seek to retaliate for his two impeachments

Gordon L. Weil

“I’m a work horse, not a show horse.”

Candidates for public office have made that claim, trying to convince voters they would be serious about their duties and not merely headline grabbers.  They wanted to impress hard-working voters.

Now, Congress is peppered with show horses. For them, a seat in the House of Representatives provides them with the platform for pursuing conspiracies that can attract media attention.  They don’t want to make laws; they want to make trouble.

With the slim Republican majority in the House, these radical right-wing members may soon have the power to conduct mock “investigations” and possibly even to force a vote on impeaching President Biden.  They have resented being marginalized in the past and now see their opportunity to step into the spotlight.

There’s an agenda behind their moves that goes beyond merely gaining public attention for their theories.  It’s a vendetta for Biden’s victory over Donald Trump in 2020.

Some of these Trumpers still falsely claim that the last presidential election was stolen by Biden and the Democrats.  They can do little about that with Biden installed in the White House, but they can harass him.  To their election complaint, they add grievances about congressional hearings on Trump, especially his actions during the January 6 insurrection.

If they can force Biden into defending himself against their trumped up charges, they hope to weaken him as the Democratic candidate in 2024.  As the saying goes, if you “throw enough mud against a wall, some of it may stick.”  Even if their charges are fake, they might make some voters nervous about Biden.

If Biden has to go on the defensive, he will have less time for his legislative agenda.  The radicals would consider the defeat of his agenda a major accomplishment. They would have no need for a program of their own.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz had earlier warned that if his party took the House, there would be a chance it will impeach Biden, “whether it’s justified or not.”  It would be payback for the two impeachments of then President Trump, which the GOP saw as partisan excess. 

If Congress could impeach Trump for a phone call to Ukraine President Zelensky, the radicals may believe that pursuing Biden for the chaotic withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan could work. 

Presidential impeachment is political.  It has been used four times: Andrew Johnson (1868), Bill Clinton (1999), and Trump (2019, 2021).  All were overwhelmingly partisan and none led to the president’s removal.  The only bipartisan move, targeting Richard Nixon (1974), led to his resigning to avoid being impeached and then convicted by the Senate.

Trump, who often finds himself in court, is now facing serious legal charges, probably more challenging than impeachment.  He continually asserts that all charges against him are politically motivated.  But his likely violation of the Presidential Records Act keeps moving ahead, and he scrambles to put together a defense. 

His allies in the House may hope to use pressure on Biden as a way to induce prosecutors to back off on Trump’s cases.  But a new special prosecutor, beyond political reach, is dealing with his keeping government records and his insurrection role.  He also faces possible indictment in Georgia and New York on state charges, both unaffected by whatever happens in Congress.

Impeachment has been devalued by its increasingly frequent and overtly political use when there’s no hope of conviction by the Senate.  Charges brought by prosecutors may take its place as a way of holding a president accountable. 

Because Trump is once again a candidate, prosecutors must proceed with caution, but need not be deterred. Trump on trial could face what is for him a fate worse than impeachment – losing.

It’s likely that a Biden impeachment resolution will be introduced and that the Judiciary Committee will hold hearings.  Will the GOP unite to pass a resolution leading to a Senate trial?  Bringing Biden before the Senate, where he surely could not be convicted, would be counted as a big win by the radical right.

The GOP Speaker should be able control the Republicans and to ensure that they do not later pay a political price for focusing on Biden and not on congressional business.  But GOP control of the House is so narrow that the Speaker cannot afford to offend the radicals.  Besides, the radical agenda includes reducing the Speaker’s powers.

The radicals might be allowed to play out their game.  But their overreaching could cause a Republican split.  The radicals’ exaggerated role might bring a reaction from traditional conservatives that could boost the GOP’s appeal to a broader electorate. 

If Biden decides against running again, removing him as a prime target for the radical right, the Republicans might find it advantageous to return to their roots.

 

  

FIX IT #1: Reviving the Constitution without amending it

Gordon L. Weil

This is the first in a series of articles on measures to deal with current constitutional issues without amending the Constitution.  These issues have arisen because practices have evolved that result in abandoning original intentions and eroding democratic rule.  Each article in the FIX IT series will deal with a single proposal that would rebalance government.  Change would focus on creating conditions for compromise, essential for the functioning of the American government.  These proposals are only one set of ideas; others are possible.  I invite your comments.

 

 

In 2015, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, but the Republican dominated Senate refused to hold hearings on the nomination in the belief that, if a Republican won the presidency in 2016, they could fill the vacancy.   Later, Neil Gorsuch, the replacement GOP nominee of President Trump in 2017, could only be confirmed over Democratic opposition when the Senate GOP changed its rule on the majority vote required for confirming Supreme Court nominees.  

Both events were clear cases of historic constitutional customs giving way to partisanship.  Traditionally, the president’s choices of Supreme Court justices were approved by the Senate, so long as the appointees were found to be competent.  But, in recent years, senators had come to display extreme partisanship and apply ideological criteria.  That left no room for compromise.

The United States is a country built on compromises.

It began with the Declaration of Independence when delegates could not agree that “all men are created equal” included African-Americans.  At least five colonies found slavery essential to their economies and seemed ready to spurn independence if other colonies insisted on condemning the system on which they relied.

The Declaration created a military alliance of 13 independent states, united by their desire to throw off control by the British king and his government in distant London.  But no American government was yet created.  Instead, the states made voluntary contributions to the joint effort.  At the outset, there was no national army, leaving the war effort dependent on state militias.  And slavery survived.

On the day George Washington was selected to head the joint military effort, he might have qualified as the only American who was more than a citizen of his home state. 

Washington needed a national government that could marshal the resources to pursue the war.  The states compromised by reaching a formal agreement having its own voting procedures, but the country remained heavily dependent on voluntary state support.  

This agreement was the Articles of Confederation.  It created a “perpetual” union of the states and named the new country: the United States of America.  It provided for services, from military to postal, that only the nation as a whole could provide, but state financial support to provide those services remained voluntary.  It neither dealt with slavery nor created a standing army.

The compromise on slavery worked, because the confederation left most powers to the states.  While offering the opportunity for closer cooperation, the Articles provided more possibilities than real progress.

Daniel Shays changed everything.  In 1786-87, he led a rebellion in Massachusetts against  efforts to collect taxes and debts.  His rebellion was suppressed by the state, while the American confederation stood helpless.  Washington and Alexander Hamilton, his former aide, stepped up pressure for a stronger national government.

The Confederation Congress agreed that the Articles had to be revised.  In the end, the 39 men who negotiated a new agreement in the Philadelphia summer of 1787 almost totally replaced the Articles.  The new document was the U.S. Constitution.

The war against Britain was a rebellion, but the Constitution was the real American Revolution.  It created a completely new form of government.  It would have no king and no single dominant branch of government.  The legislative, executive and judicial branches would be separate and control one another through a system labeled “checks and balance.”

The new Constitution established a federation in which the national government and the states would share sovereignty.  Not only would this make sense for an already vast country extending over a thousand miles, but this compromise was essential if the states were to cede some real powers to the federal government.

The Constitution created a democratic republic, meaning that popular control would be exercised through elected representatives.  It embodied two main compromises.  Slavery could continue and there would be a combination of popular and state control of the national government.

All states would have equal power, as they had under the Articles, while the people were also given a stake in the government.  The compromise took the form of a bi-cameral Congress composed of a House of Representatives with membership elected by the people and a Senate in which each state would have two votes.

The two compromises were linked.  The existence of the Senate as an essential part of the legislative process not only respected the states but allowed the slave states to protect their “peculiar institution” as the country developed.

Two concepts were borrowed from the British.  Like Parliament, Congress – the lawmaking body – would be the most important branch of government.  There was no mistaking this intent as shown by placing it in Article I with the president following in Article II.

Britain had no written constitution.  Their basic agreement consisted of Acts of Parliament and some venerated customs.  Similarly, the written U.S. Constitution left many governmental powers subject to understandings, which would become customary. 

One central understanding was that the free states and the slave states would be kept equal in number.  But the Constitution could not guarantee that equality would continue indefinitely. The slave states of the South became increasingly concerned whether the basic constitutional compromise could be maintained.  With the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln, they lost faith that their economic and social system could survive. “And the war came,” as Lincoln said.

Two post-Civil War events changed almost everything.  Slavery was outlawed and the states came more closely under federal control.  This was the Second American Revolution.

Still, it would take another hundred years before its intent was realized.  The former slave states delayed equality for the former slaves and their descendants.  They exploited a Senate rule that allowed them to prevent votes on civil rights for African Americans. By 1964, it could no longer block such votes, though the rule would survive.

The other change came in a constitutional amendment in 1913 that ended the Senate as a forum of the states.  Instead its members are elected by the people, not by state legislatures as they were previously.  But each state continues to have two senators.

Slavery’s legacy survived. Under their so-called Southern Strategy, the Republicans refashioned their party in 1960 by exploiting southerner discontent with the rise of African-American voters. Republicans gained political strength as the coalition between conservative Southern Democrats and liberal northern Democrats collapsed.  As election followed election, voters became polarized. 

By 2000, Republicans had discovered they could manipulate the historical customs that had allowed the relatively smooth functioning of the constitutional system.  There was nothing overtly illegal in what they did.  They found they could solidify their control of the federal government by substituting new partisan practices for those customs.  Democrats, fearing they might one day find themselves in the same position, accepted some of these new practices.

Such partisan practices meant that reaching compromises became almost impossible. What the Republicans had exploited for political gain would lead to sustained conflict that could ultimately disrupt or undermine the constitutional system.

To prevent this development, the federal government must recover the customary practices that had promoted compromise.  Preserving the Republic would have to gain greater importance than diverting constitutional custom for partisan gain.

Of course, the Constitution could be amended as its Framers had expected. But amendment is a difficult process and risks opening the door to repeal of some essential procedures and safeguards.

An alternative is to revive historic understandings by institutional change not requiring amendment.  These actions could take place gradually, piece by piece.  Identifying some of those pieces is the purpose of the following FIX IT series.

Each section contains four parts:  (1) Quick Fix, a summary of the proposal; (2) The Proposal, an explanation of its background and details, (3) Political Effect, a brief analysis of the implications of the proposed change on politics and power and (4) Major Repair, a description of more extensive but less likely changes, including amending the Constitution, that would achieve a similar result. 

No Red Wave, but big Blue Undertow

Gordon L. Weil

The heralded Red Wave – an overwhelming Republican election victory – obviously didn’t hit the shore.  But there was a strong undertow – a powerful countercurrent just below the surface.

The polls and the pundits, both merely skimming the surface as usual, missed the Blue Undertow.  

A fading Donald Trump is reported to have cost the Republicans at the polls.  In fact, he had a major impact, because in 2020 his big turnout allowed the Democrats only a small margin in the House.  That left them vulnerable to the usual mid-term losses of a party holding the presidency.  Their loss was the least in 20 years, but they began with only a small lead. 

President Biden’s reported unpopularity was supposed to drag the Democrats to defeat.  No poll found whether his relatively low standing was more personal than political.  Biden lacks charisma, political sex appeal, in a country where bombast (see Trump or Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis) catches the public’s attention.

Biden’s occasional oratorical miscues may not communicate the kind of strength that voters want.  His calm demeanor obscures his generally positive record.  He may suffer because voters want both good policies and a flashy personality that shoots from the lip.  But his drawbacks didn’t harm the Democrats.

Biden talked a lot about the threat to democracy.  His message was that, if the GOP won, election deniers and dishonest vote counts would undermine free and fair elections.  The Democrats adopted extreme moves to block the election of Republicans who would reverse election results.  His warnings and Democratic moves worked.

The results may have been a rejection of candidates falsely finding election fraud, but also reflected a deeper concern about democracy.  The January 6 insurrection at the Capitol left sentiments that short survey questionnaires cannot measure.

The Republicans had been concerned that the findings of the House committee investigating the insurrection would be used against them in the election campaign, and the committee’s hearings were likely part of the undertow.  Public concern about democracy may have resulted from Trump’s brand of political expression having gone too far.

The GOP succeeded in dumping Rep. Liz Cheney, one of their most loyal members, for expressing her concerns about Trump’s threat to democracy.  But the sacrifice of her seat in Congress for a larger cause caught national attention.  No survey asked about her influence on voters’ decisions.

By the way, Liz Cheney is a woman.  Next year, 12 governors will be women.  Polls report that most men vote Republican and most women vote Democratic.  That overlooks the increased political activism of women.  The abortion issue was in sharp focus in male-dominated GOP states mistakenly rushing decisions that only directly affect women.

Pollsters warn that the Democrats may only be able to count on 60 percent of Hispanic voters, while ignoring that they may be able to count on 60 percent of women voters.

Inflation was seen as the big issue that would swing voters toward the Republicans.  That strategy assumed that people would hold Biden and hence the Democrats responsible for higher gasoline and food prices.  But it also assumed that people were dim enough to believe that voting for the GOP would promptly lower the price at the pump. 

Inflation was probably less of an issue than expected, because people were aware of the effects of the pandemic, Ukraine war and possibly even Saudi Arabia’s oil cuts.  Voters worried about high prices and believed the GOP is good at managing the economy, but that did not translate into blaming the Democrats for inflation.  The polls simply did not read the issue well.

Another barely mentioned demographic influence is the split between urban and rural areas. In many key elections, the Democrats won big in the biggest municipalities, while Republican candidates carried many small towns.  There can be more voters in a few big cities than in all the small towns.  In Maine, Gov. Janet Mills won all of the leading vote-producing towns and cities. 

The Democrats did well in Senate, governors and state house races.  They might have done better in the House, except for the way district lines had been drawn by Republican state legislatures.  Gerrymandering by GOP legislatures had been largely left intact by GOP-appointed judges. The U.S. Supreme Court, mostly Republican appointees, still smiles on political gerrymandering.

In New York, the majority on its highest court, all Democratic appointees, turned down the Democrats’ redistricting plan.  By default, the Republicans got their favored plan and flipped four House seats, which could be nearly the gap between the two parties in the House. 

The Democrats’ surprisingly good showing, freeing Biden of responsibility for a setback, may make it easier for him to decide against running again.  Perhaps he never intended to seek a second term and now the way is clear, free from embarrassment.

Big bucks, Russia, pundits at the ballot box

 

Gordon L. Weil

Democracy was on the ballot this year.

The issue, perhaps never before appearing in public opinion surveys, was all about opposing efforts to suppress voting and deny election results.

In recent decades, the Republicans have pursued voter suppression, trying to reduce the number of Democratic voters. Beyond that effort, even before an election, fraud claims, lacking any evidence, were ready and ballots questioned.

This political strategy has become part of partisan politics without evidence that dishonest elections are increasing. Donald Trump’s prolonged campaign against his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden set the pattern for pre-election strategy to challenge results in close contests.

Attention has been focused on the conflict on these issues, ranging from scores of court cases to the January 2021 insurrection at the Capitol. But there’s more to it than that. Forces coming from outside the district or state have also powerfully influenced the elections, including this year.

Money’s role in politics is now huge. The country has moved almost completely to accept that spending money on elections is the equivalent of speech and so cannot be limited.

Campaigns now believe that the outcome of an election can be influenced, if not determined, by how much money is spent to support candidates. This year, it has been estimated that more than $16.8 billion was spent on federal and state campaigns.

While buying a person’s votes is illegal, their choices may be “bought” by massive media, mail and canvassing efforts to reach individual voters. If you can’t get into voters’ pockets, get into their heads.

In Maine, an estimated $1 million was spent on the contest for State Senate President Troy Jackson’s seat. That’s a new record. Using the number of votes cast in the same district in 2020, that spending amounts to about $54 for each vote cast.

This spending was less concerned with a single senator than about which party controls the seat and who leads the Senate. Could the Maine Senate be bought for $18 million, the price of gaining a majority in the 35-seat body?

In today’s politics that’s pocket money. So long as campaign spending is effectively unlimited because it’s free speech, elections will be increasingly influenced by the intense campaign attacks made possible by big bucks.

Then, there are the Russians. They have resumed sending their electronic messengers to spread false information in American social media. Yevgeny Prigozhin, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, has asserted that, “we interfered, we interfere and we will interfere. Carefully, precisely, surgically and in our own way.”

They have created phony characters that spread lies to favor Republicans. The Russians believe U.S. support for Ukraine can be halted by flipping congressional control to the GOP so that no additional funds will be voted to support the opposition to their stalled invasion.

Federal agencies have done little more than warn Americans against believing posts by people whose identities cannot be verified. But the Russians have improved their targeting and benefit from the momentum of their tactics gained in past campaigns.

Another background influence has come from treating elections like sports. Relying on questionable poll results, the pundits roll out the score every day. Primaries are like playoffs. Voters are guided to the final score by the incessant reporting on who’s leading and what the big scoring maneuvers are.

Much less attention is paid to the issues and coverage of a candidate’s promises and whether they would realistically be able to keep them. Political ads focus far more on an opponent’s defects than on the candidate. When issues become complex, it’s easier to focus on politics more than on policy. And maybe more fun.

This style of campaign coverage may create its own political reality. Voters become increasingly drawn to the daily score rather than to a sustained focus on what candidates propose and their records. With campaigns as sporting events, we’ve been getting more color comment than play-by-play.

Much less significant, but largely ignored, is the unusual electoral effect of non-citizens. According to the Constitution, the census, which prescribes how House seats are distributed among states, uses the total population within a state, not only the citizens or voters. Where there are many resident aliens, legal or not, the census count may be higher.

The effect of illegal residents on the census reveals that Texas, a Red State, probably received one additional seat in the House. The state that fights undocumented immigrants may be gaining power in Congress thanks to them. That could mean that another state, say Blue State New York, has lost that seat, helping shift control of the House from the Dems to the GOP.

Money, the Russians, pundits and aliens may have influenced this year’s election outcomes more than attempts to block voters from the ballot box.

From ‘Chief Twit’ to Chief Justice, believers in intentional lies

 

Gordon L. Weil

It’s easy to believe something that’s not true. From conspiracy promoters to the highest court, people intentionally choose to do it.

Take the assault last week in San Francisco on Paul Pelosi, the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Investigators have found he was attacked simply because he is the husband of the outspoken and controversial leader of the House Democrats.

Political differences, no matter how extreme, should not degenerate into violence. Oppose all you want, but your political views should not be reduced to a physical attack.

But the problem goes beyond that. The attack took place and it was wrong, but some try to excuse it by lying. Without any evidence, a well-known conspiracy promoter pushed the suspicion that Pelosi and his attacker knew one another and there was a fight between them. This lie could discourage GOP sympathy for Pelosi or even make it look like it was all his fault.

Relying on nothing more than this unsupported accusation by a rabid opponent of the Democrats, Elon Musk last week retweeted it to tens of thousands of people. He concluded, “there is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye.”

Then, Musk, the self-styled “Chief Twit” on Twitter had to give way to Musk, the new CEO of Twitter. After buying control of this social site, Musk tried to reassure worried advertisers, who dislike controversy, by proclaiming, that Twitter “obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences!”

But Musk’s “tiny possibility” says a lot about “free-for-all” statements that appear online in the social media. If a person harbors a bias and can conjure up a theory that might remotely be thought possible by ignoring the facts, they can promote an alternative explanation to the evidence. Spreading falsehoods may turn a situation that might benefit an opponent against them.

With the growth of social media, a kind of dumping ground for opinion as much as a forum for discussion, a tweet like Musk’s could reach more people in 24 hours than all the newspapers in America. Unlike the press which is subject to some editorial standards and review, the social media allows anybody to say pretty much anything.

The claim is sometimes made that nobody can stop this baseless talk because everybody has the right to free speech. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution only prevents the government from controlling speech, but it says nothing that prohibits a company, say a social media owner, from controlling speech on its own site.

Texas and Florida both passed laws that would prevent social media outfits like Facebook and Twitter from deleting false or inflammatory messages. The states argued that the companies were violating the free speech rights of conservatives. Federal judges found that the state laws, covered by the First Amendment, violated the free speech rights of the social media companies. The cases are now at the Supreme Court.

Of course, nobody is required to access social media. And the traditional media and watchdogs can reveal untruths when they are spread.

But it’s a different matter when the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to make decisions affecting millions based on false assertions contrary to the facts. It seems to be inclined to do just that on matters relating to race, the most significant issue in U.S. history.

In 2013, the Court ended federal government preapproval of voting law changes in areas where Black citizens’ voting rights had been limited. The Chief Justice wrote that Black voter registration was high, making protection unnecessary.

That dubious finding got him where he wanted to go. His decision was like saying that, when crime is low, we don’t need police. That intentionally ignores the effect that a police presence has on crime. Right after the decision, some states raced to reverse laws that protected Black voters, proving him wrong.

Threats to Black voting access, widely known and understood, were simply dismissed by a Court with little interest in civil rights. Last week, the Court seemed ready to intentionally make the same mistake. This time the case involves attempts by universities to have a diversified student body, which means Blacks may get some preference in admissions.

The justices, except for Clarence Thomas, seemed to recognize that diversity has educational value. But they wondered how long universities should be allowed to continue to pursue diversity and whether this policy unfairly denies admission to some people.

They ignored the point that, without an effort to promote diversity, it might melt as fast as voting rights did in 2013. Just as then, they were ready to believe something that’s not true – that discrimination and lack of access don’t much matter these days. The fact that the legacy of slavery has not yet been fully resolved simply escaped the attention of the justices.

Conventional wisdom could be wrong in this year’s elections

Gordon L. Weil

With the elections at hand, the conventional wisdom is that the Republicans will gain, almost certainly picking up control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate.  President Biden has a net negative rating and that’s expected to aid the GOP across the board.

The political analysts reach these conclusions based on three factors: the polls, higher retail prices that can easily be blamed on government spending, and the usual loss of seats in Congress by the president’s party in midterm elections.

Most election speculation is based on polling data.  The public is bombarded with online surveys and automated phone soundings to find out what issues matter to people and how they will vote. But there’s plenty wrong with polls.

Public opinion surveys are most reliable when they are based on a truly random sample of the population. They don’t exist.  Many people refuse or those who answer are not typical. Pollsters adjust the results and their natural bias can creep in. The survey questions may reflect political leaning if not outright bias. And the results are subject to interpretation. 

In short, polling dictates commentary and there’s good reason to be skeptical of it.  On this shaky foundation, the punditry begins.  The analysts sound authoritative, but at best they are making informed guesses.  The expectations created by polls that have the aura of being objective can affect decisions voters make at the ballot box.   Polls create momentum.

Biden tells us that the elections depend on whether the parties get their voters to the polls. The gap between a survey result and what people really do, including not even showing up to vote, is what the Democrats hope will refute the forecasts.

Inflation has become the big issue because it hits you every day.  What either party did for them six months ago matters less to many voters than what they pay for groceries or gasoline today. 

Higher prices have several causes.  The increase in the cost of oil and gas, the major economic byproduct of the Ukraine War, affects almost everything we buy.  Just like the disease itself, the economic effects of Covid-19 seem to be staying with us and are costly.  Bringing production home from China raises costs.

Though these factors are undeniable, they are simplistically boiled down to the cost of government being too high.  The GOP is the party that wants to lower taxes and cut down the size of government. 

Even if there’s a disconnect between benefiting from government action, like renewed roads or Covid-19 income support, and wanting a smaller government, the price of daily purchases may be somewhat blindly dictating the political response.  The purse beats policy.

Conventional wisdom also tells us that people are concerned about crime.  It is difficult to know what that means to each voter, but there is undoubtedly a sense that things are getting out of control when each day’s news seems to contain a report of killings of innocent people.  Without knowing how to stop these incidents, voters may feel that authorities should do better.

It’s also possible that talking about “crime” really relates to ill-considered calls to “defund” the police or police treatment of Blacks and the related reactions to tense situations.

Elections are supposed to give the people the opportunity to tell political leaders how they rate.  Whether the hopes raised in a presidential election year have been realized becomes the test.  If there’s enough disappointment, those in power suffer.  That’s considered to be the normal rule.

The country seems to be evenly divided politically.  As a result, even a small swing to one side or the other can change who’s in control of the government.  This year, there are at least two other factors at work.

One of them is Donald Trump’s effect.  The Republicans have produced some candidates who are closely aligned with him and his policies.  Do they appeal only to the right wing of the GOP, essentially ceding the election to the Democrats, or do they represent a majority of the voters?  Here’s where Biden’s emphasis on Democratic turnout may matter.

Politics in America has always contained a lot of negativity.  You are asked to vote for a candidate because of the defects of their opponent not because of their skills or policies. The chief casualty of this kind of politics is truth.  That’s one reason why elections almost inevitably lead to voter disappointment.

The other factor, mainly identified with the GOP, is voter suppression.  Reducing the effect of Democratic voters by gerrymandering districts, making access to voting difficult or even questionable vote counting are expected to be key factors in flipping the House to the Republicans.

Taking all this into account, we probably know less than we think we do about next month’s election results.    

Ukraine war remaking the economic, military world

Gordon L. Weil

The Ukraine War wasn’t supposed to happen.

At the end of the Second World War, Americans and others drank their own bathwater, as the saying goes.  They imagined that the winning alliance – the U.S., Britain, the Soviet Union, France and China – had finally halted the endless land wars for territorial gain.

In 1945,their dream was wrapped into the United Nations, a forum for negotiating settlements and avoiding war.  The five big winners would run it, though really it would boil down to the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.

Within four years, they failed.  After stealing American nuclear secrets, the Soviets occupied much of Eastern Europe.  To stop their advance, the U.S. organized NATO with Britain, France and others. Meanwhile, China crumbled, paving the way for a Communist takeover.  Quickly, the post-war world evolved into opposing blocs: democratic countries and dictatorships.

The Soviet Union was really Russia and the neighboring countries it controlled.  Eastern European satellite states were a buffer between Russia and the West.

Russia suffers from historical paranoia. With flatlands on its western border, the Russian Empire and later the Soviet regime always feared invasion, and with good reason.  Napoleon in 1812 and Hitler in 1941 marched on Moscow.  Only because they were overextended, outnumbered and seriously cold were they forced to retreat in defeat.

The history of national boundaries in Eastern Europe shows almost continual change.  At times, Ukraine was a key part of the Russian Empire, but it was also a maltreated part of the Soviet Union.  When the U.S.S.R. folded in 1991, it achieved independence.  In effect, it took its place near the end of the decolonization that had swept the world after the Second World War.

In the 1990s, it appeared that Russia’s paranoia could be cured by closer economic links with the West. But then Vladimir Putin came to power.  He lamented the end of the Soviet Union, and hoped to revive the Russian Empire.  Otherwise, he feared that the Russia he ruled would be nothing more than “a regional power,” just as Barack Obama had labeled it.

In his view, Ukraine, home to second-rate Russians, had to be recovered. As it became more attracted by the EU and NATO, Putin saw Russia’s buffer disappearing.  The West would be at the door, able to invade.  He had to stop Ukraine’s drift westward.

Based on his largely unopposed take-over of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula, Putin seemed to believe he could capture the rest of the country in a matter of days.  With the UN having become ineffective and NATO having lost its mission as it still hoped for amicable relations, Putin could imagine winning a land war in Europe.

If Putin were a throwback to the bad old days of Nazi aggression, he surprisingly faced Joe Biden, an American president who was a throwback to the Cold War with the Soviets.

Putin made two mistakes.  He badly underestimated the Ukrainians, and he mistakenly believed that the only weapon in the U.S. arsenal was words. The impact of his errors was huge, disastrously affecting Russia and undermining the world economy.

Russia emerged as no longer worthy of a seat among world powers.  Its only weapon was nuclear, more effective as a threat than as an instrument of war.  By revealing his country’s essential weakness, Putin turned Russia into the junior partner of China.  His timing was bad.

Xi Jinping, China’s president, is at an earlier place on the dictator’s learning curve than Putin.  He dislikes the instability that Putin created, though he exploits it to boost China’s standing in the world. If Xi opposed Putin, the Ukraine war might come to an end. But he may reason that Putin taking even part of Ukraine by force is a helpful model for China taking over Taiwan.

And Putin could succeed at least in gaining some territory.  After a one-sided war in which Russia could pulverize Ukraine while Ukraine was restrained by its backers from touching Russia, a negotiated settlement might allow the Russians to save face by dividing Ukraine.

The world economy will never be the same.  Overdependence on others can be dangerous, as Russian oil and gas customers have learned.  Or as China’s TikTok users are learning. Globalism is reverting somewhat back to national self-sufficiency.  But this can bring higher prices.

It will also cost more to be prepared.  The Ukraine war has shown the limits of Russian readiness and war production, but it has done the same in the West. This is not merely a matter of armed forces and weapons.  It’s also about the domestic economy ranging from modernizing manufacturing to advanced research.

Above all, it is critically important to recognize that the post-war world is gone.  The times call for the U.S. to reassert itself as the world’s leading economic and military power.