What happens on November 4? The morning after

 

What happens on November 4?

Getting to ‘go’ – again

 

Gordon L. Weil

November 3 could be a big day.   The pundits and pollsters binge on forecasts about the Election Day verdict on President Trump and its implications.

Before the country gets to the election, it must go through the attacks on the electoral system itself.  They create a battleground and by the time the votes are counted, they may turn into a full-scale political war.

Trump believes that he and the GOP are favored by limiting voter participation.  Based on the premise that making voting more complicated discourages and deters Democrats more than Republicans, he exploits phony charges of past and potential voter fraud.  While fraud should be stopped, there’s almost no evidence of it having occurred.

While the courts prevent him from drastically reducing voting by mail, his forces have geared up to challenge any aspect of an election lost by the Trump GOP.  The rule seems to be: “if you can’t win it, mess it up.”  The Democrats have to organize to fight disputes that may extend well after Election Day.

If and when the votes are finally counted, there are three possible outcomes.   Each would have a major impact on the final two years of Trump’s term.

The Republicans could retain control of both the House and Senate.  Holding a closely divided House after a mid-term election would be highly unusual.  Such an outcome would be interpreted as a surprising and massive endorsement of Trump, even if the GOP majorities were tiny.

At that point, Trump might reasonably expect his party to continue its abandonment of most of its legislative responsibility in favor of his legislating by executive order.   In short, the motto for the second half of his term could be “more of the same.”  In fact, he could be encouraged to topple even more political norms.

But there may be some Republicans who are less accommodating.   As a lame duck, he may be less able to successfully back opponents over disloyal Republicans.  Constituent interests might take precedence over loyalty to him.  Or his lagging popularity might allow some defections.  In short, even a big win might limit, not boost, his authority in the GOP.

With the Republicans controlling both houses, the Democrats would have little more than the power of the podium.  Anti-Trumpism based on his defects is not enough.  They would have to build a case for 2028. They would need to develop alternatives to Trump’s moves, and not merely attack him. 

The ambition of the many Democratic progressives could get in the way of such a unified program.  They could seek to assert a special claim to leadership, if the Democrats were to fail completely in November.

The second probably more likely outcome would be the Democrats taking the House, while the GOP holds onto the Senate.  Stalemate would be likely, though the absence of agreement could open the way for Trump’s continued use of executive orders.  Or, given the fading role of a lame-duck president, they might try to find ways of compromising at least occasionally.

The possibility for compromise will depend on the four leaders.  Any of the current leaders might be replaced, making their attitude toward compromise a factor in their selection.  The choice of leaders, coming soon after the elections, could set the tone for the entire Congress.

Straight bipartisanship would be impossible.  But total war could be replaced by the leaders identifying issues on which a negotiated result would work better for both parties than deadlock.  Such agreement would benefit members wanting to show they can work across the aisle, while remaining solid partisans.

In the less likely outcome that the Democrats won control of the Senate, they could block all Trump nominations, especially to the courts and prevent the majority-vote passage of spending bills.  Their role could some make House compromises necessary to get anything done.

Finally, the Democrats could control both houses as the result of a Blue Wave, a sweeping Democratic victory.  This would be seen as a total rejection of Trump’s handling of all issues.  But it would not allow the Democrats to direct national policy.

Trump would face the choice between seeking a constructive relationship with the Democrats or escalating his all-out war.  His impressive ego could stand in the way of his making any deal for which he could not get all the credit.  Alternatively, he would need to find effective legislative liaison.

Trump reportedly fears a third impeachment.  If the House impeached him, the case would be tried before a Democratic Senate, and it would not be quickly dismissed as has been the case when the GOP controlled the Senate.  But it would be highly unlikely to succeed.

Whatever happens on Election Day, the presidential campaign begins the next day.  The congressional result may soon fade, eclipsed by the race for the White House.

 

 

 

 

Press rights and gun rights -- are some rights better than others?

Press rights = gun rights

Are some rights better than others?

 

Gordon L. Weil

The president has just announced by executive order that any person not a U.S. citizen is prevented from possessing a gun.   This order applies immediately to any immigrant who has not yet been naturalized.  They must turn their guns over to an eligible person or to the police. 

The president believes that the Second Amendment extends only to citizens.  It refers to the need for guns by militias, and it is obvious that state militias were not meant to include aliens.  The president’s policy is consistent with their campaign position in favor of greater gun control.

Proponents of gun rights as established under the Second Amendment have launched furious opposition to the president’s order and have filed an appeal in the federal district court in Amarillo, Texas, which has been unfavorable historically to gun control.   They seek an immediate suspension of the order.

This move by the new president, acting right after Inauguration Day 2029, immediately brings to mind earlier actions by then-President Donald Trump.  In 2026, he blocked certain news correspondents from the White House, because he deemed their probing reporting as constituting “fake news,” which he wanted to counter.

Trump now believes that the First Amendment, expressly protecting freedom of the press from government action, does not apply to the White House.   “I don’t have to let them into my – into the people’s house,” he said. 

The president might not “have to let them in” if they constituted an immediate threat to public health and safety.  But he cited no such cause and, in fact, gave no specific reason for excluding three news organizations from the White House.  He alluded only to their reporting on him and the Trump Administration.

But his quote was telltale.  He regards the White House as his house, though the landlord – the American people – sets the rules of conduct through a lease called the Constitution.  It provides that the federal government cannot override freedoms of the press and of speech.

The proponents of the Second Amendment see it as providing an absolute right to be protected from government interference.  That’s why they would protest the hypothetical 2029 presidential order.  That should also be true for the application of the First Amendment in 2026.  Why would one right be more absolute than another?

But either Trump or his successor might rely on the Supreme Court for help in asserting their ability to limit a constitutional right.  Either would have been acting within their understanding of the scope of presidential powers.  In its decision in Trump v. U.S., the Court ruled that the president is subject only to impeachment if his official acts violate the law.

Of course, after months of review, the Court could find the president’s act unconstitutional.  It would then be up to the president to obey the law or not.  If the chief executive balked, they could only be sanctioned by impeachment and removal from office, impossible in light of an inevitable partisan defense. 

Having received an unfavorable lower court injunction, Trump can be expected to ask for a Supreme Court ruling.  Trump has tended to obey the Supreme Court.  

He exercises his personal presidency.  He believes that his 2024 election, while not the landslide he claims, gave him a mandate to make major changes in federal policy and federal government operations.  His action against the news media illustrates his view of the almost unlimited extent of his presidential powers.

Republican control of Congress has given him an unusual opportunity to assert his views of the presidency.  If he succeeds in at least some of his efforts to change how the government works, it could set precedents for a Republican president even if the party loses congressional control. 

These Trump moves reflect the agenda of his key aides, Stephen Miller and Russell Vought, the principal author of Project 2025, the White House policy manual.  They are building barriers to Democratic control if it were to win by relying on the non-white popular majority that the two seem to dread.

Attacking the supposed “fake news” carried by the leading national news organizations is also likely to become part of Trump’s rejection of the results of the midterm elections, if the GOP loses.  Trump Republicans would claim voter fraud in jurisdictions they expected to win, with elections taking place in an atmosphere poisoned by the press.

This short-sighted view is based on the belief that the Project 2025 changes will be impossible to dislodge.  Why would modifying them be more difficult than reversing governing norms has been for Trump?  They may be leaving a legacy for the Democrats to exploit to the GOP’s disadvantage.

The media is fighting against Trump’s attempt to limit the public’s access to a free press.  Its resistance may awaken people to the importance of protecting their right to make up their own minds.

 

Big men meet Murphy's Law, face unintended consequences

 

Big men meet Murphy’s Law

Unintended consequences are a theme

 

Gordon L. Weil

American aerospace engineer Edward A. Murphy, Jr. coined a saying that came to the world as Murphy’s Law:  "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."

Because humans are imperfect, Murphy’s Law may merely state the obvious, though it’s often ignored.  For overly self-confident leaders, unwilling to listen to others’ advice, the Law is virtually certain to apply.

Major events in the world are determined these days by people, full of their own power and pride, acting while either ignoring advice or not even seeking it.  They may believe they have reached their exalted positions because they are superior and are thus less liable to error.

Their actions may involve risk, a recognition that they may fail to achieve their desired results.  The outcome could turn out worse than expected, but trying to achieve their goal is worth the risk.  Taking risks is an important part of life, but the cost of possibly negative outcomes must be considered.

People with inflated self-confidence believe they are virtually risk free.  They foresee positive results and believe that any minor negatives can be handled without undermining the achievement of their objective.  Still, they may find their actions have unexpected and high costs. 

In recent years, world events have been determined by men who undertook actions with excessive confidence and chose to ignore the possibility of unintended consequences.

Russian President Vladimir Putin deeply regretted the end of his country’s dominance through the Soviet Union and sought to restore it.   Resentful of Ukraine’s independence, in 2014 he seized Crimea.  Having encountered no resistance from the West, he was encouraged to continue.

In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in the expectation that it could quickly fall.  It would gain an added buffer between itself and NATO.  Given the defense organization’s internal weaknesses and Russia’s 2014 experience, he seemingly expected to restore at least some Russian influence in Eastern Europe.

Surprisingly, Ukraine effectively repelled the invaders.  Europe, experiencing a territorial invasion for the first time since 1940, reacted strongly, enjoying substantial U.S. backing.  The Baltic states were strengthened.  Choosing no longer to be a buffer, Finland joined NATO, as did Sweden. 

Putin’s plan failed, and Russia found itself engaged in a long war, suffering military losses, shortages and inflation.  Ukraine attacks key facilities.  Russia has lost vital oil revenues, becoming increasingly dependent on China.  What Putin saw as an easy victory over a weak neighbor, produced confrontation with NATO, not a buffer.

Putin’s Ukraine invasion had unintended consequences.

While negotiations with Iran were underway in February 2026, President Donald Trump decided to go to war against Iran, seeking several goals, most notably the end of its nuclear development program for peacetime or military purposes.  He mistakenly expected a quick war and complete victory.

Instead, Iran managed to block the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for the world’s oil trade, resulting in shortages and sharply increased prices for petroleum products and fertilizer.  Economies across the world were harmed, and consumer prices in the U.S. soared.  The sole American objective became the re-opening of the waterway, which its war had closed.

Trump’s Iran war has unintended consequences.

Xi Jinping, the Chinese Communist leader, has promised to make Taiwan, formerly a territory of his country, once again a part of it.  By increasing his navy’s presence and potential control over the China Sea, claiming it as China’s internal waters, he moved his army closer to being able to invade and reclaim Taiwan.

Japan is China’s biggest Asian rival.  Faced with Chinese ambitions, it has shifted its military policy from defense to deterrence, while greatly boosting its military spending.  The unexpected, new policy reflects its decision to provide an independent deterrent while remaining aligned with the U.S.   China now faces a constraint on its plans.

Xi’s expansionism has unintended consequences.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas, the terrorist group controlling Gaza, launched a brutal, surprise attack on Israel.  Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader, understood that Hamas was risking Israel’s retaliation, but believed its defenses had weakened.  Proportionate retaliation would be an acceptable price to pay for pressuring Israel to accommodate some Palestinian demands.

Sinwar faced a powerful Israeli response.  Ultimately, the Arab presence in Gaza was thrown into question and hope for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, accepted by Israel, evaporated.  Turmoil has grown in the Middle East.

Under Sinwar’s leadership, Hamas assumed a risk, but the extreme costs, including his own death, were unintended consequences. 

Despite these recent cases, powerful leaders continue to ignore the likelihood of unintended consequences. 

Warned about an AI doomsday by some of its developers, Trump asserts, "the only control or 'guardrails' that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!"

“Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.”

 

Putin, Trump threaten Europe

Putin, Trump threaten Europe

Its failure would be costly

Gordon L. Weil

 

The recent near-victory of Alternative for Germany (AfD), the right-wing party, in one of that country’s states, pushed speculation about the rise of extreme-right parties across Europe.  The similar party in Sweden also came close.

In these countries and elsewhere from the Netherlands to Italy, worries mount that the liberal democracies that followed the Second World War will give way to conservative, even authoritarian, regimes.  Some in the AfD call for their country to overcome its “culture of guilt.”  At least one of its leaders openly resents Berlin’s Holocaust memorial.

The unifying issue on the right in Europe, as in the U.S., is opposition of immigration and the presence of non-whites in the national population.  The right-wing in Sweden might even be willing to pay recent immigrants to go back to their countries of origin. 

The AfD is strongest in eastern Germany, an area that has a slim democratic tradition.  It went directly from Nazi rule to Soviet Communist domination.  After German reunification, many people there felt themselves to be the object of discrimination, despite the generous outpouring of economic support from West Germany.

Two world wars began in Europe when German leaders – Kaiser Wilhelm and then Adolph Hitler – believed that their country had been cheated out of its rightful role.  Because Europe was the center of world politics, their aggression led to wars involving nations from distant continents.

Germany was defeated and, after World War II, the victors decided to prevent yet another recurrence by binding it into an integrated community of nations, making impossible any new extreme claims arising from German nationalism.  With U.S. economic and political backing, a new organization was created that grew into the European Union.

Nationalism was to be replaced by supranationalism.  Under the new regime, states would cede some of their powers to an international commission given the power to make binding decisions.  National economies would be interwoven to the point that no single country could act independently.  It worked.

The founders also planned for a unified military operation, but that plan faltered for fear of rearming Germany even to a limited extent.  The Europeans also realized they could benefit from allowing the U.S. to dominate their military policy, providing most of its defenses.

Because they did not create a common armed force, European nations forfeited the chance to develop political unity, especially in foreign affairs.  While some Europeans hoped for enhanced links, economic success and American protection allowed them the comfort to back away from closer integration. 

Europe began to understand that it could not launch a new world war.  The great powers were the U.S. and Russia, not Britain and Germany.  Europe could afford to give itself the luxury of nationalism, trading off its potential for a focus on developing its internal market, while giving up the role its merged economy might give in world affairs.

When it created a new unifying treaty, it gave each of its nations, from the largest to the smallest, a veto right.  Any hope for supranationalism beyond economic integration was abandoned.  The promise of a new, equal and democratic partner for the U.S. disappeared. 

Then came Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

Trump has conflicting expectations.  He correctly expected Europe to take greater responsibility for its own defense instead of being a free-rider on the U.S.  While American forces in Europe serve U.S. interests, they also have allowed European resources to be diverted to purposes other than their own self-defense.

Given Europe’s failure to emerge as a great power and its dependence on the U.S., Trump believed he could exploit their dependency rather than helping them overcome it.  He claimed Greenland, a territory of Denmark, only a small ally.  He could go to war against Iran without consulting Europe, which should simply fall in line.  Europe reacted negatively.

Putin drew the same conclusion as Trump.  Europe was weak, creating the opportunity for building more of a buffer between Russia and NATO by seizing control of Ukraine. He did not count on Ukraine’s ability to resist or Finland and Sweden acting to strengthen Europe’s defenses by joining NATO.  Yet, he keeps probing Europe’s defenses against more aggression.

Both the U.S. and Russia have revealed their limitations, offering Europe a renewed opportunity to assert a world role.  It has reacted, but its sacrifice of military resources for Ukraine’s defense has flowed more slowly than its rhetoric of resistance.  If Putin’s attack on Ukraine amounts to war on Europe, as its leaders say, its response lacks a tangible sense of urgency or crisis.

The world needs Europe.  But persistent nationalism keeps it from assuming a leading role.  It may now miss an historic opportunity, leaving it to be swept along by the waves generated by others.

Disclosure:  I studied at the leading institution training European leaders, the College of Europe in Belgium.  Long ago, I served as the only American on the EU staff.

 

  

The president who threatens his own country

 

The president who threatens his own country

Trump at war with his opponents

 

Gordon L. Weil

People should be either sad, angry or worried.  Or all three.

Recent news reveals far more than mere political disagreement.  It’s normal in a democracy for people to disagree and to argue that they know better than the opposition.  It’s the new normal to turn opposition into hatred and disagreement into unyielding conflict, threatening the country.

In his speech to the Republican rally that was called a convention, President Trump engaged in fear-mongering, repeatedly claiming that a Democratic congressional victory would bring Communist control.  This is not acceptable political talk nor can it be dismissed as campaign rhetoric; some people take it seriously because he says so. 

Rally participants shouted out for the killing of Democratic Senate candidates.  Sen. Ted Cruz was speaking at the time, but wanted to give the impression he had not heard, though many others did.  To ensure continued control by Trump Republicans, anything goes.  If Trump’s view prevails, no political opposition to his authoritarian government could survive.

Trump divides.  Upon taking office, the Trump administration abruptly fired the head of the armed forces, a Black man, and the head of the Navy, a white woman.    The actions implied that they got their jobs because of favoritism, not their experience and ability.  Without evidence, such prejudicial judgments can be understood as legitimizing racism and sexism.

He rejects affirmative action, but goes further to remove from office people he sees as taking the place of the historical ruling class.  He tries to rewrite or deny history.   Slavery cannot be erased as part of that history, yet that’s now being attempted in museums and national parks.

Beyond the federal government avoiding efforts promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), he withholds government funding to force non-governmental institutions, from universities to law firms, to follow his line.  Critical scientific research, through which America has led the world, will be severely crippled.

The president uses the augmented powers given to him by the Supreme Court to use the federal government for personal enrichment and retribution against his critics.  The DOJ brings spurious legal actions against critics and opponents, while openly admitting that the evidence of their supposed crimes must be found only after charges are brought.  That’s not how justice works.

These moves may intimidate their subjects into submission or retreat.  They certainly constitute harassment, aimed at making life more difficult and costly for his critics.  He never uses these tactics against supporters and, in fact, pardoned people who attacked the Capitol police in 2021.

He sues the news media and seeks regulatory penalties for those who simply question him.  Freedom of speech is a one-way street for his administration.  If successful, he could control or eliminate expressions of opposition to his actions.

He has terrorized his own political party and converted it into his personal property.  Anxious to hold onto their seats in Congress, Republicans temporize or keep quiet.  They follow him, because they’re scared of him.  The GOP, historically against more federal debt, now gives him all that he wants.  Their interest in survival exceeds their obligation to public service.

The Trump administration operates on the principle that the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world, militarily and economically, and can force others to do what it demands.  Tariffs and warships, not diplomacy, are the prime instruments of foreign policy.  Adding insult to injury by making wild claims against other countries is part of this policy.

He reduced military support for South Korea, an essential ally in restraining China’s ambitions, because it does not support his Iran war.  He openly disdains Europe, demanding its support without consulting it.  He covets Greenland.  He turns Israel, long supported by both parties, into a partisan issue.   All this is personal politics, not leadership.

Canada has long been a willing dependent of the U.S.  Trying to achieve its complete subservience to the U.S., Trump levied high tariffs and launched aggressive and extravagant insults.  In Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, he found a rare opponent who would not be intimidated and who knows that Trump’s America is forfeiting its global standing.

The world’s problem is not Donald Trump.  It’s that the American people elected him a second time after experiencing his first term.  It’s not that you cannot trust Trump; it’s that you cannot trust America.  Turning away from America is a painful but inevitable process.

The elections this year are a referendum on Trump.  If Trump Republicanism survives, then more of the same can be expected.  Increasingly, average people may see Trump policies threatening their standard of living, their rights and their opportunity.

The question is not about whether the divided Democrats can get out of their own way.  It is whether the American people pay enough attention to look out for their own good.

Disagree?  Please comment.

Independent politics are coming; Democrats drop out

 

Independent politics are coming

Democrats drop out

Gordon L. Weil

 

Conventional wisdom tells us that political parties are fading away.   

The Republican Party has morphed into Trump’s personal property.  He is the RINO, but he counts.

The Democrats are divided, as usual, this time between traditional New Dealers and progressives, including the Social Democrats.

The deep discord between the two parties has turned compromise into a dirty word and made name calling and falsehood the standard.  Core partisans exist on each side, though many voters supposedly want constructive cooperation to solve practical problems.

The media promotes this picture, helping make it seem true.  But that’s not quite right.

Traditional conservative Republicans survive, but they may detest Trump.  Democrats may find unity in their shared rejection of Trump.  The existence of a moderate middle may be more myth than reality.  With Trump having become the single issue, compromise is impossible. 

The partisan division is real.  The GOP developed effective party discipline, and the normally unruly Democrats have finally reacted and become more disciplined.  In Congress, each side almost always follows the directives of its leaders.

Each party’s supporters include strong backers and leaners.  Moderates exist among the leaners, but not independents.  Only a small share of voters doesn’t lean in either direction and includes true independents who may determine election outcomes.

The media has so significantly become engaged in covering the political split that its coverage and opinions regard independents as political deviants rather than proponents of alternatives to division.  That’s how the party leaders see it as well.  Still, there are true independents.

Few members of the House and Senate slip party discipline.  The five biggest House dissenters are four Democrats, including Maine’s Jared Goldin, from districts that Trump won, and one Republican from a district that Harris carried.  In the Senate, Susan Collins (R-ME) and John Fetterman (D-PA) represent states won by the other party’s presidential candidate.

Two GOP senators who are leaving the Senate, have become willing to oppose Trump.  One of them, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, and Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian dissenter, became Trump victims and lost their primaries.  That’s proof that Trump’s power has suppressed independence. 

Sometimes, senators march to their own tune.  Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul is a loyal libertarian. The two New Hampshire Democrats (one is not seeking reelection) sometimes are more responsive to their swing state more than to the party’s demands.  In 2010, the Alaska GOP dumped Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the leading Republican dissenter, but she won by write-ins. 

Some commentators suggest that the only way out of stalemate is the formation of a new party, a home for moderates from both sides.  Theoretically, Republican moderates opposed to Trump wouldn’t become Democrats, but could align with Democratic centrists.   Presumably, the GOP would melt away after Trump. 

While new parties have emerged and gained major party status, it’s rare, and there are no signs of it happening now.

Long ago in Maine, some Republicans in a then solidly red state decided to back Democrat Edmund Muskie for governor.  They did not become Democrats but chose to consider themselves as independents, and Muskie won.  That kind of choice may be happening in some of this year’s elections, and Democrats are trying to help it along. 

In Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn lost in 2024 after running a solid Senate race and is again opposing an incumbent Republican.  Democratic nominee Cindy Burbank has withdrawn from the race to improve his chances.

In South Dakota, independent Brian Bengs, formerly a Democrat, is running.  Democratic candidate Julian Beaudion dropped out.

In Idaho, independent Tod Achilles, a former Democrat, is running against an incumbent.  Democrat David Roth withdrew.

In Montana, independent Seth Bodnar is running with the support of Democratic leaders.  Alani Bankhead, the Democratic nominee, resisted pressure to withdraw, and she may help the GOP.

In Alaska, Democratic House candidate Matt Schultz dropped out in favor of independent Bill Hill.  Under the state’s unusual voting process, the top four open primary candidates for the Senate are on the ballot.  The fourth, a Democrat, dropped out, allowing a Republican to move up.  The result pits three Republicans against a single Democrat, already the frontrunner.

The Democrats’ tactic of strategic withdrawal is an answer to how to create a comfortable political space for Republicans who reject Trump’s takeover of their party without undergoing a political transformation.   It also reflects broad voter disappointment with both parties.

If the strategy works, it could give Democratic leaders heartburn just as Fetterman and Golden have done.  Independents may support Democratic leadership, but their party loyalty is not guaranteed.  If there are independent winners this year, they may not abandon their special status at the Capitol doorstep.

If the Democrats’ strategic withdrawal doesn’t work, it might not be taken as a failure, but rather as a first step. 

Campaign cash floods in, while gold moves out

 

Campaign cash floods in, while gold moves out

Gordon L. Weil

Political money mounts, funding falsehoods

The top tune of 2026 is the clink of campaign cash.  Billionaires and large corporations support candidates without limit so long as they are “independent” of the formal campaign.

The Supreme Court decided that spending money is free speech.  That means billionaires each get more speech than an average person.  It’s questionable if that’s what the First Amendment means.  The ruling transformed American politics, and each election sees new campaign contribution records.

Small contributions matter, but not much.   In Maine, Elon Musk’s money backs GOP Sen. Susan Collins, whose campaign funds top Democrat Troy Jackson’s.  In June, the Supreme Court allowed political parties to freely pour money into campaigns and has just cut their ad rates (!).  Trump’s PAC, after hoarding its cash, just committed to hundreds of millions for close races.

The obvious basis for political giving is that the candidate with more money is more likely to win.  That candidate has more to spend on television ads and direct mail, which make up the largest part of campaign spending.

Most voters likely form their opinions about candidates from the ads to which they are relentlessly exposed, not the debates watched by dedicated supporters.  Most ads these days consist of truncated truths or outright falsehoods about incumbents and challengers.  Money promotes myths that make winners.  Voters are victims.

But that’s not necessarily so, even if candidates keep asking for more.  In some campaigns, candidates win, though they are greatly outspent.  In other campaigns, contributors back safe candidates, ensuring their loyalty and giving them money to line up more backers.

Saturation may be the limiting factor.   Television time is fully committed.  Political mail readily becomes “junk mail.”  Lawn signs?    More money cannot be justified or it may even turn off some voters.  Money as speech may endure, but people may not like to be outshouted.

A message from the cellar

Deep beneath the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, gold bars are stored in bedrock vaults.  Most of this gold belongs to other countries, whose governments have long thought that the safest place for their gold, a part of their national currency reserves, was in the U.S.

The New York Fed does not control the gold; it only protects it.  Most nations with significant gold reserves, with the possible exception of the U.K., have kept some or all of their gold in the Fed’s vault.

But that is changing.  Germany keeps only about a third of its gold in the U.S.  France has taken its gold out of the Fed.  Last week, the Netherlands central bank announced it had moved its gold either back home or to London.  Other countries may be acting quietly.

Doubts grow about the U.S. as the world’s banker.  Trump attacks the independence of the Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank, reducing respect for the dollar as a reserve currency.  This week, the Norway state fund, the world’s largest, announced it is sharply reducing its U.S. Treasury holdings.

Trump exceeds understandings about the limits of power, weakening confidence in the Fed.  He might suddenly seize other countries’ most precious financial asset in retaliation for their not supporting his Iran war.   It seems safer to take the bars out of the Fed’s cellar.

AI and its limits

In the previous column, I mentioned a Wall Street Journal column by investor Stanley Druckenmiller.  A report about it suggested that the writer may have had the help of AI.

This was one more sign that AI is penetrating American life, potentially affecting important communications.  In several cases, courts have found that lawyers let AI draft a brief, which included citations to phony cases.  College students are having AI write papers for them, and professors must use AI review programs to search for AI.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the head of the city’s schools have blocked the use of AI by elementary school students.  “Children need teachers and human connection in order to learn and grow. They need to develop skills alongside their peers, build relationships with educators and wrestle with tough problems on their own,” said the mayor.

School chancellor Kamar Samuels noted, “We’re putting guardrails in place to protect the human connection, curiosity and creativity that help children grow.”

AI can usefully supplement human research, but these challenges suggest it should not be allowed to replace HI – human intelligence.   If it does, the country will end up with a population that is less educated, articulate and literate.  The AI-based jobs that will displace rote tasks may go unfilled for the lack of educated personnel.  Automatons won’t do.

AI could get out of control.  Government has a role in protecting people, not simply promoting data centers.

For the record, this column is neither written by nor edited by AI.  Its defects are all mine.