Israel-Palestine, U.S. Congress are zero-sum games

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Israel-Palestine-Gaza conflict and House Republican politics might seem to have nothing in common.  But they do.

Both yield no hope of compromise.  It’s impossible when parties believe they are fighting over a limited resource.  That’s called a “zero-sum game.” When one side wins, the other side must lose.  It’s winner-take-all.

In Israel-Palestine, two groups insist that the conflict there is a zero-sum game.

Extreme right-wing parties in Israel’s current governing coalition want to absorb Palestine into a single country under Israeli rule.  Arabs would be killed, expelled or required to live as second-class citizens.  Israeli Jews, they believe, have an ancient right to a land that was once theirs and that provides them shelter in a hostile world, at its worst during the Holocaust.

On the other side is Hamas, a terrorist group that sees Israel as occupying lands that had been under Arab control for centuries.  Its solution is to kill Jews or terrorize them so they leave. Because it is not bound by international norms, it feels free to rampage at will.

The limited resource in this case is territory. Each side maintains that it has a legitimate claim to all of it.  Some Palestinians and Israelis favor a two-state solution reached through compromise, allowing each side to prosper.  The world community presses for this solution, imposing the concept on Israel and the Palestinians, but without a real effort to make it happen.

Presumably, Hamas saw no chance of its anti-Israel goal being reached and worried that the U.S., some Arab countries and Israel would make a peace deal over the heads of the Palestinians.   So it attacked and refocused the world’s attention.  So far, the only result is a war with innocent victims on both sides.

In Washington, the limited resource is political power.  The slim GOP House majority tries to deny to a Democratic president and Senate the power to appropriate funds or make laws as might be expected to be done by the majority party.  If the Republican goal is to shrink government and keep taxes low, they wield power.

While compromise might advance the national interest, it would deny the House GOP the full force of its power.  While the controversial issues run the full range of the non-military activities of the federal government, they matter less to the GOP than its legislative veto.

This quest for minority control reaches its extreme when GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama blocks all senior military appointments unless he gets his way on a single issue.  Even some of his fellow Republicans believe he has gone too far.  His power, not foreseen by the Constitution, is more important than the nation’s Armed Forces.

In short, the national interest, which could emerge from a compromise, cannot be pursued because of a quest for power.

As bad as both of these conflicts over limited resources – territory or power – may be, they cause something even worse.  Success seems to depend on reducing the opposition to being seen as inherently inferior or evil.

If you agree with Israeli policy, then you may choose to see Palestinians as followers of a different creed that is inferior to yours.  If you see the Palestinians as Israeli victims, then you may hold all Jews responsible for Israel’s policy.  From these attitudes comes Islamophobia and new waves of Anti-Semitism.

If you agree with extreme GOP views, then you may see Democrats as socialists or, even worse, as traitors.  If you are a left-wing Democrat, you may see the Republican right as racist.  Both views are misguided, but make compromise impossible.

In a broader sense, these views, repeated with great passion, threaten society itself.  They can end up holding every member of a group responsible for the views and actions of some members of that group – collective guilt.

Consistent and creative advocates of compromise are missing.  Nobody takes short-term political risks to promote long-term solutions.  That requires advancing proposed solutions, even if they may not ultimately succeed.  They can influence, if not change, the focus of controversy.

The U.S. and Europe could lay out a possible two-state formula for Israel-Palestine, offering more benefit for each side than endless conflict.  Neither side would endorse it, but it could bring about real negotiations. Otherwise, bloodshed will continue, and neither side will prevail.

President Biden could propose to Congress a comprehensive package of proposals on government funding and key policies.  It would not be adopted as proposed, but Biden could be the leader who set the table for negotiations.  Otherwise, government may become paralyzed.

In either case, a compromise could produce results or failure would allow public opinion to assign responsibility. 

Now, two sides ensure that the best for one side is the enemy of the good for both. That’s wrong, because these need not be zero-sum games.

Trump, China’s Xi share policy goals

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump and Xi Jinping have the same political goal.

For Trump, it’s embodied in his slogan, “Make America Great Again.” Xi’s motto might be, “Make Communism Great Again.” Both want to return to their version of the good old days.

Before the Great Depression that began in 1929, the federal government played a limited role in the country’s economic life and had little to do with social policy. The economy favored corporations, the wealthy and the rising middle class. Social programs were left mainly to private, not governmental, action.

The economic bubble burst with the Depression. Economic growth, much of its based on speculation, could no longer support big business and wild investing. In turn, much of the middle class lost jobs and was driven toward poverty.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, beginning in 1933, gave government a greater role in the economy and social policy. It pumped funds into the economy, creating jobs, and established Social Security and other support programs to provide stability and prevent a similar collapse. His plan included stronger regulation of banking and the private sector.

A tradition of limited government action was replaced by policies giving public agencies key roles in managing the economy, which remained powered by private enterprise. During the massive economic build-up for World War II, the government chose to hire corporate America to produce armaments.

Both major parties had supported the pre-Depression system. With Roosevelt, the Democrats offered the New Deal, a major departure. The GOP remained reluctant to accept a changed role for government, which gained some power to control private sector action.

The benefits of Roosevelt’s approach became embedded in the American economy. For example, few would now advocate ending a national retirement program. But Republicans, led by Trump, would privatize programs and reduce regulation as much as possible.

Such moves would presumably make America great “again.” Trump demonizes those supporting current policies. He sees them as being more dangerous than the dictators he favors. His allies in the House seek to use their slim majority to begin reverting to the past. They try to sell their approach by promising tax cuts mostly for the wealthy.

Former president Bill Clinton once said that Trump proposed to “give you an economy you had 50 years ago, and ... move you back up on the social totem pole and other people down."

In short, making America great “again” is based on the belief that the country was greater before the New Deal and much of modern government should be unraveled.

Xi also looks back to the days when the Chinese Communist Party had the people engage in agriculture and manufacturing that were both managed by the government. Private economic activity would only be marginal. The Party would rule as a dictator on behalf of the people.

Mao Zedong had led the Communist Party to power in China. Deeply devoted to the Communist ideal, he opposed educated people who began to develop ways of thinking that departed from the simplicity of traditional Communism. But his 1958 “Great Leap Forward” was a failure leading to massive famine.

By 1966, he launched the Cultural Revolution, a disastrous back-to-the earth policy. After his death in 1976, the country began to abandon it and to allow the growth of private enterprise.

Deng Xiaoping, Mao’s successor, sought foreign investment and economic development. Millions left the agricultural life that Mao had favored for cities where a middle class began to emerge. Prosperity and greater individual freedom grew under a reformed Community Party.

Xi rejects Deng and pursues a return to many of the values associated with the traditional Party of Mao. He argues that his policy shows the inherent advantages of theoretical Communism over democracy.

He believes that political turbulence in the U.S. and Europe reveals the weakness of Western democracies as they emerged after World War II. He repeats the slogan, “the East rises, the West falls.”

Here is where Xi and Trump are on common ground. They both see the development of liberal democracy as opposing the natural economic system – Trumps’ unfettered individual freedom and Xi’s dictatorship of the workers through the Chinese Communist Party. Both favor authoritarian government, while claiming their approaches are in the best interest of the people.

Both ignore reality. The Great Depression, an economic catastrophe, and the Cultural Revolution, a disastrous failure, were replaced by reforms yielding stability, growth and a rising middle class. Yet the success of these reforms may have dulled popular sensitivity to their ongoing value.

Efforts by leaders to turn the clock back will ultimately fail. People are likely to recognize that the benefits of a combination of private economic initiative and government protection of the common interest are hardwired into their lives. Trump and Xi can make much trouble, but they cannot succeed.

Biden versus Trump might not happen

 

Gordon L. Weil

Get ready for snow.

Before long, the 2024 election campaign will be covered in a thick blanket of speculation.  It will be about as difficult to see through as the blizzard of punditry that blows it in.  Of course, political speculation is likely no better than most 10-day forecasts of the actual weather.  Before I take cover, here are my thoughts about the presidential race.

The big news is that polls show that Trump, the former president, today defeats Biden, the president who beat him, in swing states.   A former president who loses and then wins a second term is unusual.  Only Grover Cleveland did it, back in the 1880s.

The polls have settled nothing.  At least four scenarios are possible for the presidential election, excluding any others in which a third party would be a factor.

The first is the currently anticipated Biden-Trump contest.  This one could produce as a winner the person disliked less than the other.

On the issues, Biden has some strong points like abortion and democracy, but some weaknesses like immigration and inflation.  Both matter less than his age.  He is too old to be president for another five years.  The signs of his aging are evident, though they are ignored by his circle and advocates, impressed with his policies.

Biden suffers from his lack of an essential element of leadership.  Though he reaches out to many constituencies, he does not inspire voters.  Voters need charismatic leaders, and Biden is too laid back or tired.

Trump is in serious legal trouble, and likely to be convicted of more than one criminal violation. His loyal cult sticks with him, but would voters elect a convicted criminal?  Will traditional Republicans surrender their party to Trumpers who place their quest for power above the national interest?

Besides, what are Trump’s current policies beyond an inflated opinion of himself?  In recent statements, he seems to have a declining understanding of both domestic and international issues.

The Biden-Trump contest would boil down to a choice between the lesser of two evils, as it may have been in 2020.

One alternative would be Biden versus another Republican like Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, or Ron Desantis, the Florida governor.  They benefit from surviving in the GOP field.  Early primaries may make one of them a viable alternative to Trump.  If the court cases undermine him, a possible replacement would be ready.

That likely creates a major problem for Biden.  Running against, say, Haley could change the lesser-of-two-evils calculation.  If Biden faces the potential problem of running against a younger, cogent candidate, he might now have to either reconsider running or make a bold move to shake up the contest.

Though highly risky politically, that move would be throwing open to the Democratic Convention the choice of the vice presidential candidate.  In effect, the winner would be the face of the Democrats against the non-Trump GOP candidate.  The party, not Biden alone, would pick his potential successor.  Biden would remain on the ticket, but there would be a lively Democratic nomination process.

Yet another possible scenario would be Trump versus another Democrat.  That plot could develop if Trump overcomes his legal handicaps and Biden does not overcome the advancing effects of age and leaves the race.

In this case, the Democrats would probably not simply pass the first spot to Vice President Harris unless the need arose only after the Convention.  The Democrats could select Harris or another candidate who was younger and more in tune with the majority of voters than Trump.

The fourth alternative case might be the most appealing.  It would pit a Democrat, not Biden, against a Republican, not Trump.  Each party would go through an open and competitive process to select its nominee. 

The campaign could be mostly about the future and less about past presidencies.  In a completely divided country, with many voters who claim to be moderates but really aren’t, the electorate could be given a choice between two fresh approaches to governing in an age of environmental crisis and economic change.

Maybe the candidates would be forced to debate their policies on immigration, law and the courts, women’s equality and the future of Social Security and Medicare.  While ideology is a driving force for some voters, so-called moderates, the key swing voters, could decide who is more likely to offer practical solutions free from the controversial policies of a previous president.

Admittedly, the alternative cases may be unrealistic simply because of the momentum generated by two presidents and media expectations.  Yet merely accepting a race between two candidates who should have retired could be costly for the country.

These four cases show that today’s self-confident speculating by political analysts might amount to little more than a snow job.  Mine, too.

Classic test of political power of money

 

Gordon L. Weil

In olden times, alchemists tried to turn lead into gold.  They failed.

In 1976, the U.S. decided to convert gold into political power.  It worked.

That year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that free spending and free speech are the same.  Because the Constitution allows no limits on political speech, the Court said it allows no limits on political spending.

The decision by the unelected justices overruled the massive majority votes in the elected Congress.  Campaign spending took off.  The justices had transformed American politics.

Money now fuels politics. Big money promises to produce big results, and the proof is in the ever-increasing size of campaign spending.   Chances of election victory are tied directly to the amount in campaign coffers.

The Republican National Committee uses only two standards in deciding which presidential contenders are viable: their poll rating and their fundraising ability. Last month, former Vice President Mike Pence dropped out of the GOP race, unable to meet the campaign contribution standard.

Campaigns have become battles for the buck.  Presidential candidates compete for contributions and reject the paltry federal funding meant to level the field.  Congressional incumbents amass dollars early, trying to discourage challengers before they even begin campaigns.  In referendums – campaigns without candidates, the participants focus on outspending one another in getting their message before voters. 

Maine voters are now experiencing a classic case of the power of money in politics.  It is Question 3 on replacing two existing for-profit electric utilities – Central Maine Power and Versant Power – with a nonprofit company – Pine Tree Power.

In public power elections, owners of existing companies have the means to finance campaigns aimed at protecting their investment.  Public power proponents have no profit motive and thus may have much less ability to raise campaign funds.

This is the third public power referendum with which I have some close familiarity.  The others occurred in Maine and in Miami, Florida.  In all three cases, spending by investor-owners swamped advocates of nonprofit, public ownership of a utility monopoly.

In the earlier situations, the incumbent utilities inundated television and print media, while the supporters of change struggled to be seen.  The Miami nonprofit was proposed by the municipal government, prevented by law from spending any public funds to campaign.  It suffered a lopsided loss.

A similar pattern now exists in Maine, where the campaign funds of the existing utilities are more than ten times greater than the resources of the nonprofit’s proponents.  The operating utilities can make their case on television, while the challengers cannot begin to compete in paid campaigning. The question will be settled this coming Election Day.

The Supreme Court has also overturned a congressional majority and declared that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals and may spend freely in political campaigns.  That decision has increased the flood of political money. 

Independent corporate committees can spend without limit in political campaigns, supposedly because they are outside the control of the political parties or formal participants. To believe that such independence exists requires an act of willful ignorance.

States’ campaign spending rules may differ somewhat from the federal system. But traditional practices and the threat of Supreme Court action to extend its rulings to the states has caused increased conformity with the federal system.

The Court also ruled that each American vote should have equal weight.  But the principle of one person-one vote is a myth when unlimited corporate campaign money has allowed some participants in the political process more power than others.  The ability of a few to influence masses of voters can count more than the assurance that all votes count the same.

The process by which the people make the ultimate political decisions has been both strengthened and weakened over time.  It took constitutional amendments to allow Blacks and women to vote.   But deciding that money is a form of speech, which led to political inequality and the overwhelming power of well-funded corporations, took only a Court order.

The major political money cases came when the Supreme Court overruled Congress.  The Court, using the judicial review authority it gave itself, rejected congressional decisions intended to maintain a level political playing field.

Congress should modify judicial review by the Supreme Court and recover its authority over voting.  Basic American law should not be made by the Court.

In the Question 3 contest, like it or not, Maine voters experience the effect of unchecked campaign spending.  Their only possible action, limited to one aspect of this issue, arises on Question 2, aimed at preventing referendum campaign outlays by foreign governments or their agents.

Citizens are reaching the point where they should decide not only on candidates and campaigns, but if they will continue to accept the domination of American elections by the political power of money.

In Washington and Israel, negotiated compromise essential

 

Gordon L. Weil

The federal government has been paralyzed.

The Middle East teeters on the edge of a major conflict with unknown limits and duration.

Both situations call for statecraft and finding a common ground.  Without that, both situations yield destructive results.

The U.S. problem arises in the House of Representatives. The Republicans hold a narrow majority and can lead only if they are unified.  Their lack of unity is what has created the crisis.

A small group of GOP House members believe that, because their votes are critical to their party’s control, they can insist that all Republicans should give in to their views.  They toppled House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, because he was willing to compromise with a unified Democratic minority.

Their success continued to encourage them to insist on control by the party’s right wing, followers of former president Trump.  For a while, other GOP members would reject their push for control.  The result was a lengthy period with no speaker and no compromise.  That causes a non- functioning government, because the House simply could not act.

The unyielding stance of the Trump loyalists on the right is merely for show.  If they prevailed and fellow Republicans went along with them on urgently needed legislation, a more moderate Senate under Democratic leadership and a Democratic president would not accept their proposals.  The government would be blocked, pretty much where it is now without a speaker.

Because either a Trumpian blockade, now under way, or a House under right-wing domination yields the same non-functioning government, there is only one way out.  There must be a compromise between the Democrats and as many Republicans as are willing to risk their seats to protect the national interest.

The Democrats signaled they were ready for such a compromise, and their demands seemed relatively limited.  They wanted the House to be able to vote on necessary legislation on aid to Ukraine and Israel and on the budget.

The Democrats want a more open process, but do not insist on Republicans voting in line with them.  Compromise would produce results.  Yet the GOP right sees any concession as allowing the Democrats to control the House.  They view the Democrats with so much hostility that any compromise is too much.  Inevitably, they must lose.  The questions are how and when.

In the end, the GOP conservatives won and the GOP elected a speaker. Now we shall see if the House works better.

While the American government was blocked, the situation between Israel and Hamas in Gaza is explosive. That crisis intersects with the fumbling failure of the U.S. government to function even in a situation where there is broad bipartisan agreement.

The crisis arose at this time because Hamas launched an incredible terrorist attack on Israel.  It killed wantonly and took hostages. Its attack was obviously well planned and had no clear intent except to undermine Israel, a country it would abolish.

Understandably, Israel was embarrassed by the failure of its intelligence to foresee the Hamas attack and has responded with great force.  It cannot accept the risk of an event like this happening again.

Israel has gone beyond a military response, subjecting more than two million residents of Gaza to severe punishment to pay for the actions of the militants that control the Gaza Strip.  Israel has cut off supplies of food, medicine, water and fuel. Its philosophy appears to be that Hamas has shown no mercy, so Israel won’t.

The difference between Israel and Hamas is that Israel is an established member of the world community and Hamas is a gang of terrorists.  The Hamas attack and Israeli anti-civilian tactics bring them both to the level of Hamas. The Middle East has fallen into the Middle Ages. 

While Israel’s fury is understandable, its role as nation should drive it to a higher standard.  Instead of negotiating with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia over the heads of the Palestinians, it should pursue a solution with all parties. A permanent impasse, coupled with a continual effort to weaken the Palestinians, has not proved workable.  It produces terrorism and conflict, not peace.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres has called for a ceasefire, not because he favors Hamas but because he abhors the waste of human life.  But Security Council resolutions for a pause or a ceasefire were both vetoed. The conflict continues unabated, because the world’s premier peace organization cannot find a compromise.

No political process can function over the long haul unless it includes compromise, even between those holding the strongest sentiments.  This is the responsibility of the people selected to govern. Using force, whether by a critical House cabal or Middle East actors imposing their will without regard for the cost, does not produce the needed workable and stable result.

U.S. government, world affairs in deep crises

Gordon L. Weil

“This may be the most dangerous time the world has seen in decades,” says Jamie Dimon, a top U.S. banker.

American constitutional government halts, blocked by the failure of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives to compromise and resume their role in government.  The process of government becomes hostage to a small group of extreme Republicans, exploiting their power for their own purposes and ignoring the national interest.

The U.S. is the world’s model for democracy.  But the Constitution cannot guarantee that its institutions will work.  That depends on a shared commitment to place the effective functioning of the model ahead of any purely partisan interest.  That commitment, once breached to the point of the Civil War, is once again breached by the deep ideological conflicts of a new civil war.

Donald Trump’s loyalists battle others in their party, producing congressional stalemate.  Meanwhile Trump, the pollsters’ pick for the GOP presidential nomination, goes from one courtroom to another.  Though the charges look serious, he seems immune from political harm and has effectively taken control of the Republican Party.

Democrats rally around Biden and display uncharacteristic unity, not bailing out the GOP.  They see him as their best bet to keep Trump out of the White House, just as they saw Hilary Clinton in 2016.  He suffers from seeming bland in the Age of Celebrity, when it counts to be flashy.  Once again, the Dems see competence as a substitute for charisma. 

At the same time, America’s place in the world is threatened not only by the failure of its government, but by the hostility of its adversaries.  China, together with Russia, Iran and North Korea, strive to show that dictatorship is the natural and workable form of government.  

A new report emphasizes that these four countries have more nuclear capability than the U.S.  Pax Americana, when U.S. nuclear power guaranteed world peace, is gone. While either side can destroy the other, wielding nuclear arms is more a matter of influence than of destruction.

Trump has openly fawned over the dictators in Russia and China, while they stealthily tampered with the American political system.  He envied the authoritarian power of Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi, both of which are now openly threatening.

Trump thought he could charm the North Korean pipsqueak dictator.  He turned Iran, at least temporarily restrained by a nuclear accord, into an immediate and dangerous enemy.  Now, we pay the price.

The growth of the menacing nuclear powers would be bad enough.  But it is accompanied by the failure of the United Nations system to promote and preserve peace.  It was supposed to be the way to end territorial wars, especially in Europe, and to unite the world’s great powers in preventing conflict.

A land war in Europe rages as Russia, once a great power, invades Ukraine, its neighbor.  Countries have stepped up to support Ukraine, as much to draw a line against this kind of territorial expansion as to help a victim of aggression. 

But now the world grows tired of the effort and resumes drifting away from the U.N.’s purpose.  Its Secretary General launches platitudes from the safety of New York, accepting obscurity and enhancing his organization’s irrelevance.  He should have gone to the Middle East, not Biden.

The problem of Israel and Palestine, ripe for settlement by the U.N. in 1947, grows worse.  Israel, founded as a territorial homeland for Jews, deserves to exist free from constant threat.  But full U.S. support for it seems to lead to a nuclear deal with the Saudi dictator over the heads of the Palestinians.   That fires up the Hamas terrorists, who only know how to lash out brutally.

Perhaps even worse over the long term is the increasing threat to life on earth.   Short-term corporate profit and the quest for personal wealth build walls that block our view of the future that will result from the climbing global temperature.

The Wall Street Journal has revealed that, while petroleum mammoth Exxon publicly pledged support for the development of energy alternatives to oil and gas, it actively opposed such efforts and pushed more fossil-fuel production.  It has just acquired a major shale oil company.  Exxon boss, Rex Tillerson, later Trump’s first Secretary of State, was a monumental liar. 

If things are not at rock bottom, we are making good progress getting there.

The problem is leadership.  We don’t have any.

Congress and the White House are led by the elderly, seemingly more intent on holding office than on reform.  Younger people are forced to wait respectfully.  Where are the leaders who speak out with some courage even at the risk of losing elections?  Politics shouldn’t just be a job to be held onto.

It’s time for strong leadership, and that requires new people at the top.

  

Nobel Prizes signal rise of women

 

Gordon L. Weil

Among this year’s Nobel Prizes, four of the six awards went to a woman – two of them without a male counterpart.  The world’s top prizes recognized the role of women in a rare year of multiple women winners.  They won outright the Peace and Economic Sciences prizes and shared with men in Physics and Medicine. 

The stories of two of them, both Americans, reveal both the progress and the obstacles to redressing the exclusion of half the population from leadership and recognition.

Katalin Karikό, who came to the U.S. from Hungary in 1985, was a key scientist in developing mRNA, the basis for the most reliable vaccinations against Covid.  She shared the award with a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, though she could barely gain an academic foothold there.

Her research was so advanced that skeptical funders were reluctant to give her grants.  Instead of stepping up, Penn demoted her and moved her to a remote lab.  After she and her male colleague perfected their discovery, Penn patented it and has made millions.  She got none of the money and went to work for one of the companies that produce the vaccine.

Now, she’s a marginal Penn faculty member.  Penn is glad to claim her as one of its own, but even now it seems a bit cool to her.   She may be more popular in Hungary, where she holds professorial rank, than in Philadelphia, where she doesn’t.  Her counterpart remains a top professor.

Claudia Goldin won the economics prize for her work on understanding the gender gap in employment.  With a career at top universities, she is now a professor at Harvard.

Goldin has challenged the belief that women will gain equal pay with men and to rise to the top of business organizations.   She found that child care responsibilities cut their earnings prospects; she has no children.  She also explored the “blind auditions” for women seeking seats in orchestras and confirmed the discrimination when they auditioned with no screen hiding them.   

Goldin was given tenure, a permanent professorship in 1990, the first at Harvard in her field.  Harvard was founded in 1636 as a men’s college and for most of its history wouldn’t allow women to teach men. Bowdoin College, a Harvard spin-off, was founded in 1794 and followed the same rule.

One of the arguments used against promoting women, Goldin found, was that they were less well educated.  Now, more women than men are getting college degrees, undermining that argument.  It is also linked with changes in American politics.

Among the top 25 states by percentage of college graduates, all but five routinely vote for Democrats.  Those states and D.C. include Maine.   

The last state in this top group is Georgia, now clearly on the cusp and no longer to be counted on by the Republicans. Just ask Donald Trump.  The next group of states includes Arizona, Wisconsin, Texas and Alaska, which may not be far from flipping.

The politics of states with more college graduates may show the increased influence of women among voters.  If that’s true, then as women increasingly outnumber men among college graduates, state voting may increasingly tip to the Democrats.

Some Republicans say their congressional election results were disappointing in 2022 and attribute a shortfall from their expected results to the effect of the abortion issue, which resonated with many women voters.  It may have mattered more than merely serving as a partisan wedge issue.

This possible trend toward more women being educated and more educated voters being Democrats might help explain Republican efforts in states like Texas and Wisconsin to make it more difficult for Democratic voters among the poor to gain access to the ballot box.  If so, this move can only work temporarily at best.

Maine is a good example of the political change that’s taking place.  It is a rare state that once had two women senators at the same time.  It now has one woman and one man in each of the Senate and the House and its first woman governor. The Senate president is a man and the House Speaker is a woman.  The Chief Justice is a woman. 

Congress is also changing, but none of the top eight leaders is a woman, while 29 percent of the House and a quarter of the Senate are women.  Since Congress first convened in 1789, only one, California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, has ever risen to the top.

The courts are doing better. Thanks to presidents of both parties, four of the nine justices of the Supreme Court are women.

Both parties have good potential candidates for the presidency who are women.  What stands between them and major party nominations are old men.   Is it now time for a change?