Latest political violence – ‘swatting’

Political violence is last refuge of losers

 

Gordon L. Weil

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who had ruled Donald Trump off the ballot, was threatened and swatted.

The Maine State House, along with other state capitals, received a bomb scare.

The judge handling Trump’s New York fraud trial faced a bomb scare and was swatted.

A member of Congress and his children were threatened with being killed.

The former Arizona Speaker of the House, who had testified on Trump’s attempt to change the electoral vote, was threatened and swatted.

Swatting is calling the police to report a crime supposedly taking place at the target’s home.  It creates chaos and perhaps even danger for the target.  In two cases, it has led to the death of an innocent party.

Swatting is part of an effort to scare or physically harm a political opponent.  Many threats are dealt with locally, but federal enforcement agencies have registered a 47 percent increase in their political threat investigations in the two most recent comparable five-year periods.

Most cases share the facts that the actions are illegal and the targets have acted unfavorably to Trump.  That translates easily to a message that you will be in danger if you harm his interests.

Judges, officials and legislators take threats seriously. While they are not deterred by being endangered, they are forced to balance the safety of themselves and their families with their duty to the public.  The purpose of the judicial system is to eliminate the need for this balance, allowing officials to make decisions as objectively as possible in the public interest.

Problems arise when people who may face charges or experience negative political outcomes try to stir up opposition using physical threats, not open debate.  Debate can lead to compromise, but some may prefer to use intimidation in hopes of traveling a straight line to their desired result.

Whatever your opinion about whether Trump aided an insurrection on January 6, 2021, there can be no doubt that the people who broke into the Capital wanted to menace Congress so that it would at least halt counting electoral votes for president.   There also can be little doubt that the invaders were doing what Trump wanted them to do to change the official outcome.

There’s an old political saying that “[False] patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.”  It seems increasingly to be the case that physical attacks in politics have become the last refuge of losers.  If they don’t have the votes, they don’t give up on doing virtually anything to gain power.  They often accept false information about their opponents to the point they see themselves in danger.

For some, politics has become less about governing, a process that limits the ability of participants to completely achieve their goals, than about gaining attention for them and their cause.  They may get noticed, but they probably don’t get results.  It’s possible they simply seek to destroy the current system, so it can be replaced by more authoritarian rule.

A group of extreme conservative Republican House members were able to dump then Speaker Kevin McCarthy after he had compromised with Democrats, who control the Senate and presidency, to avoid shutting down the government by passing a temporary budget deal.  They replaced him with Mike Johnson, a Texas member they considered more reliable.

When faced with the same issues as McCarthy, Johnson did the same thing, avoiding his party being held responsible for a government shutdown.  The right wing promptly went after Johnson, forcing him to struggle for a solution.

In a recent interview, McCarthy commented on the power of that small right-wing House group to disrupt congressional action.  He said the extremists focus on their own reputation and raising money to enhance their power.  “[W]hen you come here, if you don’t want to govern, why be a part of it?” he asked.

McCarthy missed the point.  He assumed that any member would want to be effective within the limits of the system.  But the extremists seem ready to topple the system, because it requires compromises that yield results not fully meeting their goals. 

They share Trump’s belief that, notwithstanding the real situation, the country is in deep trouble.  The current political system is dominated by a permanent class of bureaucrats – they call it the “Deep State” – and they must be dislodged by an executive with greater powers.

Their goals intersect with those using physical threats, who want to create a sense of chaos that only a stronger executive can cure.  Trump’s statements indicate that he wants to expand presidential authority to bypass Congress and government professionals.

It is unusual, especially at the federal level, for the great debate over the country’s future to be carried out through attempted legislative blockades while its traditional leaders are subject to physical threats.  But that’s where the country is.

Iowa GOP Caucus Overrated, turnout is unrepresentative

Gordon L. Weil With 99 percent of the Iowa Republican caucus vote having been counted, the initial results show 109,404 voters participated. Donald Trump’s strong victory has boosted speculation both about the likelihood of his winning the GOP nomination and then the general election. To many observers, the Iowa results confirm his lead on the road to the White House. He surely got his vote out. While the results may show that his legal issues are not undermining his strength among loyal Republicans, reasons remain for taking care about drawing too many early conclusions. Leaving the punditry aside, there is one clear fact that raises doubts about reading much into the result. In the 2022 Iowa race for governor, the GOP winner received 709,198 votes. That number includes any Democratic or independent voters she may have picked up. The caucus participants for all candidates was only 15 percent of that statewide GOP vote in 2022. Overall, there were 1,211,146 Iowa voters in 2022. That means that the GOP presidential caucuses drew only nine percent of the number of active election participants. Trump won less than five percent of the number of general election voters. The importance of the first-in-the-nation step in the presidential selection process is mainly a media creation. It is useful in sending message to hopeless candidates and to potential donors. But as an indicator of who will be on the ballot in November and how they might perform, it is greatly overrated.

‘America First’ could mean America Alone

Gordon L. Weil

The nations that won the Second World War had a big idea.

Having joined together as allies to defeat Nazi Germany, they would try to create international organizations to keep the peace.   New aggression would be blocked by these new institutions.

Even before World War II ended, the victors created the United Nations, an organization designed to put their high intentions into operation.  While the wartime alliance between the Soviet Union on one side and the United States and Britain on the other had been strained, the Americans hoped that wartime momentum could propel the U.N. forward.

Almost from the outset, cooperation in the U.N. didn’t work.  The Soviet Union seized domination of Eastern Europe and, using stolen nuclear technology, asserted itself as a superpower.  It confronted the U.S. and threatened to continue its expansion westward.

China, another of the key victors of World War II, ended its close relationship with the U.S. when the Communists took control there.  Almost immediately, it backed North Korea’s invasion of the southern part of the Korean peninsula.  American forces, fighting under the U.N. banner, directly engaged Chinese troops.

The hoped-for ability of the major powers to police the world was dead.  The U.N. would not ensure peace.

Responding to the Soviet gains, the U.S. and Europe created NATO, an organization designed to forestall further advances westward by the U.S.S.R.  The Cold War emerged as alliances were formed similar to those that had existed during the two World Wars.

The Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact faced NATO, which drew the armed forces of its member countries into tight operating units, led by the U.S.  It succeeded in discouraging further Soviet expansion.

One constructive idea for cooperation was to entwine the economies of France and Germany so that they could not independently gear up to again launch a European conflict that would turn into World War III.  This idea led to the European Community, now known as the European Union.  A unified Europe could be an effective ally to the U.S.

The economic advantages of the original EU members became so evident that other countries sought to join.  But some were far more interested in the benefits that would flow to them than in creating a more unified political and economic entity.  In practice, the EU became a two-tier organization.

At its core are the founders, a relative handful of countries.  But states like Poland, Hungary and the U.K. proved reluctant to open themselves to common standards of conduct or open movement of their citizens.  The split became obvious when Britain decided to quit the EU.

Still, the European idea has continued to have appeal.  After the breakup of the Soviet Union, many countries it had controlled applied for EU membership.  Russia, the survivor of the U.S.S.R., felt challenged. 

As the EU grew, NATO became complacent, not believing that Russia would resort to military action.  Even after Russia seized parts of Ukraine in 2014, NATO chose to appease its adversary, just as had Britain and France in a showdown with Hitler. 

Then, under then President Trump, the U.S. began to back away from NATO. By 2022, Russia felt free to try to seize all of Ukraine.  NATO, under American leadership, at last awoke.

The Asia-Pacific area countries, including the U.S., had not understood that China would follow the Russian example and seek to increase its regional power.  As it became evident that it would try to dominate the region, the Trans-Pacific Partnership was formed to confront it. 

But the U.S. saw the TPP merely as a trade agreement, failing to understand it as an alliance to block China’s expansion.  Under Trump, it backed out.  Only when China’s moves in Hong Kong and the South China Sea became blatant did the U.S. take leadership of a Pacific effort against its moves.

Though the U.N. would not be a world organization to promote peace, regional alliances arose to face aggression by Russia and China.  Still, the U.S. and Britain insisted that national sovereignty is more important than this effort and moved away from these alliances.

Some define sovereignty as retaining completely independent action and ceding no powers under an international arrangement.  For example, it has become almost impossible to get the U.S. Senate to ratify any treaty, because a deal with another country may be seen as a loss of sovereignty.

But a nation can exercise its sovereign powers to increase its prosperity and security by deciding to join with like-minded partners.  Given American power, such alliances can continue to increase U.S. influence, not limit it.

In the upcoming presidential elections, the U.S. will again be asked to decide if it wants to continue leading common international efforts against aggression or to isolate itself from them.  Insisting on “America First” could result in America Alone. 

Democrats need to toughen up

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Biden is unhappy. 

He has berated his staff for not getting him the credit he believes is his due for what he calls “Bidenomics.”

While it’s true that unemployment and inflation are down nationally and business seems to be doing well, many people are unhappy with the economy and give Biden little credit for the positive developments.  Their pay may be up, but so are their costs.

Biden looks at the national economy, but individuals look at their own personal economy.  The two different views yield two different results.

The reason is possibly that increases in national wealth may not be distributed in a way that gives many people the sense of an improving economy.  If a large share of the growth is going to the wealthiest ten percent, the rest of the people may miss most of the virtues of Bidenomics.

Whatever the gains under Biden, the country still operates under a tax system created by Donald Trump and a Republican Congress.  That system is designed to reward the wealthy and large corporations.  Billionaire Warren Buffett, who favors higher taxes on the rich, can still point out that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Despite the tax deal favoring the rich, the GOP does well with average voters by effectively targeting its message at them.  Using wedge issues like abortion and gun control to gain support, it may even succeed in inducing them to believe that taxes are too high, which benefits the wealthy far more than them. 

Many of these people have become the Trump Republican “core.”  They are fed a steady diet of Trump’s version of political and economic reality by the skilled use of social media and cable television.

Surprisingly, the GOP learned about personally targeted politics from a hard-hitting Democrat, then a member of Congress from Illinois.  Rahm Emanuel used this approach to flip the House of Representatives from Republican to Democratic in 2006. The GOP watched and learned and by 2010, they flipped it right back.   GOP social media and Fox News were flying high.

The success of social media is its focus on responding to the sentiments of its followers rather than recruiting new supporters.  It’s likely that few liberal Democrats follow right-wing social media outlets or watch Fox and other conservative channels.  But loyal Trump backers are continually fed stories that confirm their views, and they remain enthusiastic and become a cult.

Trump’s own social media site, called “Truth Social,” is estimated to have more than two million followers.  They could be many of the same people who follow conservative cable programs, and they belong to him.

The result is that they can come to believe, inaccurately, that Biden is a socialist and dangerous to the country.  They can be left untouched about claims of a booming Gross Domestic Product, if that’s even understood. With Trump at the head of the ticket, they are drawn to the ballot box.  If they show up, they may give him wins in primaries and swing states.

Social media may succeed in gaining the attention of conservative voters who are not loyal Trump backers.  They make their case in readily understandable terms that appeal to the conservative leanings of their recipients.

The Democrats have no answer, as Biden is learning.  Bidenomics in 2024, like Obamacare in 2010, is an abstract idea that fires up few voters.  Fact-checkers may prove that the GOP errs, but that, too, is an abstraction to many voters.  Like the GOP, the Democrats want to appeal to their backers.  But they act like they’re in a student debate, not a political war.

One key feature of Trump-inspired social media is always being on the attack.  It labels its opponents as dangerous.  Its policy proposals are almost all negatives, like quitting NATO or reducing environmental protection.  That’s a sharp contrast with the almost academic arguments of the Democrats.

The professional media tends to give each side equal weight and coverage.  While Biden’s actions are duly reported, mistruths may get the same often unquestioned attention.  Its coverage may lack critical news judgment.  Objectivity should remain the goal, but its mindless pursuit can promote misinformation.

The Democrats should become more aggressive in the social media.   They often sound more like professors than politicians.  Their message should be simple and bold.  They can direct their message to individual voters, and not only focus on broad national policies, however successful. And Biden should be more visible in the nightly news.

Aside from being too old to run and consequently out of touch with younger generations, Biden plays by dated political rules, no longer suited to the politics of the times.  The Democrats will continue to lag in the polls if they don’t toughen up.

Civil War was all about slavery

              

Gordon L. Weil

Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley tried to dodge admitting that the Civil War was about slavery.

Yet her state was the first state of the Confederacy to secede, acting months before Abraham Lincoln took office.

The state argued that the Union was based on agreement among states that slavery could continue and that non-slave states would send escapees back South when captured. But the North was reneging on that agreement and wanted to end slavery.

Lincoln had promised that he would not act to end slavery where it existed, whatever his own views. In fact, Congress proposed a constitutional amendment containing that promise, which was ratified only by his home state of Illinois. The southern states chose to secede.

Many in the South, having lost the Civil War, came to believe in the Lost Cause. They claimed to have wanted only to have preserved states’ rights and been simply overpowered by the Union. Slavery was pushed into the background. This was the position advanced by Haley, which might have helped her in some Republican primaries but not in a general election.

This is an excerpt from the South Carolina Declaration of December 1860, which in turn has a link to the complete document.

 

Trump’s fate depends on Court he picked

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump got the Supreme Court he wanted. 

He will now discover how it will make its way between solid conservatism, political partisanship and the historical opportunity to determine the presidential election, possibly costing him a return to the White House.  The Court’s reputation is at stake.

This moment recalls the Court having picked the president in 2000, when it handed George W. Bush a narrow victory over Al Gore.

Trump faces in 2024 more major legal challenges than all previous ex-presidents together.  The biggest questions could either end his chances or give him a critical boost.

The latest case involves the Colorado Supreme Court decision that he cannot run in the Republican primary there because he participated in an insurrection against the U.S., culminating in the attack on the Capital on January 6, 2021.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution bans from federal or state office any office holder involved in an insurrection.

The Colorado court examined three questions.  First, does the president hold an “office” covered by the Amendment?  Second, was January 6 an insurrection or merely a riot?  Third, did Trump’s actions and statements constitute participation in an insurrection?  Colorado said “yes” to all three and ruled Trump off the ballot.

If the Supreme Court majority disagrees with the Colorado court on even one of these questions, keeping Trump off the ballot anywhere almost certainly would fail.

A second key case involves the Trump claim that he is immune from prosecution for virtually anything he did while president.  In a 1974 case involving Richard Nixon, still president at the time, the Court ruled that his immunity did not extend to acts beyond his official duties.  Were Trump’s efforts to undermine the state-certified electoral votes a part of his presidential duties?

If the Supreme Court gives Trump absolute immunity, the federal case against his alleged constitutional violations, being heard in Washington, would be severely damaged.  If it denies him full immunity, it might in effect be deciding the case against him by eliminating his best defense.

These two cases could deal with most important legal challenges to his campaign.  But they would not necessarily affect the federal case in Florida about his taking top secret documents with him when he left Washington, the Georgia case about his election interference there or the New York civil case about his providing false financial information.

The media is fond of noting that Trump’s re-election effort seems to be unharmed by the many cases brought against him.  Of course, he has not yet been finally convicted of anything relevant.  And the torrent of cases, whatever the justification for their timing, can readily appear to his supporters as an opposition vendetta.   Will final court decisions change that?

If the Supreme Court acts as courts often do, it will seek to decide the bare minimum necessary and leave alone other questions.  If it is a more political than judicial body, it could be expansive and do Trump a lot of good (or harm, though that’s not likely).

In the Colorado case, it might decide that insurrection meant the Civil War when the Amendment was adopted, but that it has not otherwise been defined.  Colorado alone cannot create that definition; that’s for Congress to do and it hasn’t.  Trump remains on the ballot.

In the immunity case, the Court could decide against Trump, based on the Nixon precedent.  The former president accepted that adverse ruling, even though it meant he was likely to be convicted in the Senate by the votes of his own party, leading him to resign.

The Court probably understands that a conservative body denying Trump his best protection would send a strong message to his supporters that he may have violated the law.  By allowing the Court of Appeals to rule first, the Supreme Court may rely on the lower-court ruling, protecting itself from seeming to be simply a partisan player.

Taking action affecting Trump’s political future puts pressure on the Court.  Senate Republicans turned against Nixon, showing that punishing a president must be bipartisan.   But, with few exceptions, GOP senators did not reject Trump after his second, overwhelmingly partisan impeachment.  The Court, like the Senate, must now make similar decisions.

Advocates asking the Court to harshly judge Trump by interpreting the Constitution and laws to punish him may be short-sighted. Whatever happens to him could happen to any successor.

The Constitution, though much revered, is much distorted by partisan practice.  The Court has sometimes shared in the responsibility for that.   Now it faces tough judgments.  The answer about whether there was an insurrection cannot be found in the law. It will be the judgment of just nine, unelected people.

At their core, the Trump cases this year should turn not only on his actions but also on protecting the Constitution.

 

Defense bill, COP 28 mislead people

Gordon L. Weil

A funny thing happened to the promise made by the COP28 environment conference to “transition” away from fossil fuels.  You know, that’s the stuff that makes most of our cars go.

It went out the exhaust pipe when it encountered the recent U.S. defense spending bill that will lay out tens of millions for a new parking garage at BIW.

The international community has set a target of limiting the increase in the world’s temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-global warming level. According to science, if this limit is not achieved, the quality of life on Earth is harmed.  Accomplishing this goal requires a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and their eventual elimination.

The most effective way to cut gasoline usage is to drive less.  Replacing private vehicles by mass transportation, including car pooling, would cut down on total auto use and emissions that cause global warming.  Yet federal money encourages private vehicles instead of developing more and better mass transit facilities.

At the same time as the U.S. advocates the fossil fuel phase-out, the defense bill supports motor vehicle usage.  Politicians may talk a good game, but they prefer to cater to our immediate wants instead of our long-term needs.  That’s not how leadership is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, in reality, building a new BIW parking garage to encourage commuting does not conflict with the COP28 outcome.  Its so-called transition from fossil fuel includes a raft of ready-made excuses for not making the goal.  Besides, the transition would only deal with energy production.  It doesn’t touch motor vehicles.

COP28 took days of negotiation to come up with just the right language that could both make it appear that the world cared about global climate change and satisfy the oil producers who hovered over the proceedings.  The supposedly successful result showed how clever diplomacy works to produce words without action.

Not only was the defense appropriations bill backing the garage right in line with this do-nothing policy, but the bill itself represented much of what’s wrong with politics in Washington.

The federal budget consists of three parts: mandatory, discretionary and interest. The mandatory portion accounts for a majority of the budget and covers Social Security, Medicare and other statutory programs.  Interest includes the payments on government debt incurred to cover outlays that exceed tax revenues.  Discretionary spending has two elements: military and non-military.

The defense spending bill covered the military piece.  It was supported by a majority of each party.  The basic political promise of almost all candidates is “jobs, jobs, jobs,” and the bill helps them keep that promise.

The bill is like a Christmas tree, with something under its branches for every state.  Congress often tries to gift wrap items that really have little to do directly with national defense and include them, because the passage of this bill is a virtual certainty.  This is done by limiting them to the defense establishment.

The costs of  BIW garage might ordinarily be covered by the company, the state or the city or all of them together rather than by taxpayers across the country.  Of course, Mainers pay for such benefits to other states.

Under the Democrats, Congress had tried to keep military and non-military spending roughly equal.  After 9/11,  Republicans successfully trimmed non-military outlays while enhancing military funding.

The multi-faceted military budget is contained in a single bill, making it possible to enact questionable items, safe in the knowledge that few in Congress will want to risk seeming to oppose defense.

The garage is a good example of moving some non-military spending into the better protected part of the budget.  Spending that might be challenged in non-military bills and even labeled as socialism is not disputed when it is targeted at defense personnel.

The GOP insists that non-military spending should be covered by many separate bills, making it easier to target cuts in programs similar to those that slip into the defense bill.

The defense spending bill united both parties, though extreme liberals and extreme conservatives joined in voting against it.  Surprisingly, many of them shared the same reason for their opposition.  They wanted to halt the authority of the federal government to spy on communications by Americans.

While the vote on the defense bill looked like a rare case of bipartisanship, broad support for military spending has never been in doubt.  The political risks of opposing it are too great and the benefits for all states are too tempting.  The government’s surveillance authority would have to be reviewed later.

In the end, both COP28 and the defense spending bill were hailed as victories in the self-congratulatory statements of the people who made the deals.  Perhaps they hope we won’t look at them too closely.