Polls miss major issues, GOP’s big problems

 

Gordon L. Weil

As we come to the final six months of the political campaigns, the polls predict close races. But a number of key questions remain and raise doubts.

Will there be one or more Trump trial verdicts and will he be acquitted or convicted?

Who will Trump pick as his running mate?

Will either Biden or Trump say or do something so outrageous or incompetent as to compromise their candidacy?

Will the health of Biden and Trump hold up under the pressures of the campaign?

Will Supreme Court decisions on abortion laws, student loan forgiveness or other issues influence voters?

Will the Republicans be able to keep up with Democratic fundraising?

Will the GOP successfully suppress voting?

Will swing voters – women, young people, traditional Republicans, Blacks – switch sides or stay home?

Add to the ultimate answers to these questions, the political reality that the Republicans now bear more of a disadvantage than might be expected. As campaigns grow more intense, these critical concerns may affect the GOP’s chances for success.

The first concern is Donald Trump, the once and hopeful president.  The election seems to be about him more than any issue or event.  His unusually faithful support comes from millions who admire his unfettered and outspoken style.  He makes his simple solutions to complex issues easy to grasp, a real advantage in a complicated world.

But just how far his faithful support can carry him remains to be seen.  While his presidency and candidacy have brought him a loyal core, they have also inspired an increasingly organized opposition.  Donald Trump is the biggest unifying force the Democrats have enjoyed in many years.

Trump’s courtroom tests add to his controversial candidacy.  Never before has the leader of a national ticket been embroiled in criminal proceedings during his campaign. This situation causes incalculable risks for the GOP.  Trump might score points arguing that the charges and timing are politically inspired, but they must also hurt.

Right now, it is impossible to gauge the electoral effect of the indictments and trials, but they will certainly influence the elections.  That Trump fears their effect is shown by his efforts to sidetrack them.  The political impact of the proceedings may be as important as the possibility of his being convicted.

One sign that the Republicans are faltering in the Trump trial era is their inability to match the Democrats’ fund-raising efforts. Not only has Trump diverted some funds to his legal defense, but party coffers are relatively short of cash.

This shows up in U.S. Senate campaigns. In Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the Republicans have recruited candidates mostly distinguished by their ability to finance their own campaigns.  Their inexperience may prove politically costly as they run against veteran Democratic incumbents. Their cash is supposed to prove the critical difference.

Trump lauds himself for having appointed Supreme Court justices who buried the court-established federal right to abortion.  While activists ardently support this decision, a popular majority has far less restrictive views, putting the GOP on the defensive.  Even Trump has backpedaled far enough to anger Mike Pence, his formerly faithful vice president.

The abortion issue, central to Republican policy, is a gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats. It could turn the tide of congressional elections, just as it did in 2022.

Perhaps the most powerful Trump-GOP issue has been immigration.  Here, President Biden has been extremely vulnerable.  Facing a backlash even from Democratic states, he accepted GOP positions in order to get a bill enacted. This provided the unusual prospect of a bipartisan immigration bill, meeting key GOP demands, that could have passed.

This Republican victory might have been a big plus in November.  But Trump wanted to deny Biden any credit, even for swallowing his loss, and led the House GOP to torpedo the bill. By this action, he gave Biden a boost, enabling him to argue that the GOP put Trump’s interests above a needed national policy.  They turned victory into defeat.

If these concerns weren’t enough, tack on the embarrassing inability of the House GOP to use its slim majority effectively.  Instead, the extreme right dominates to block compromise. Stunningly, they ousted their own speaker and have rebelled against his successor who promoted a key agreement in cooperation with Democrats.

In many cases, the Republicans are their own worst enemies.  But none of their problems guarantees Democrats’ success.  These issues suggest that polling forecasts are premature, because they ignore these underlying GOP problems for the final stages of the campaign.   They suggest that we really know little about November’s likely results. 

Perhaps the GOP’s problems will matter less than, say, Biden’s age, but that’s a big gamble.  Momentum matters, and the GOP campaign may be at a point where it would suffer without a positive push.

Politicians are far older than their voters

Old senator wants younger judge to retire

Gordon L. Weil

A marvel of modern politics occurs when a U.S. senator, age 78, urges a U.S. Supreme Court justice, age 69, to step down because she is too old.

The senator’s worry is that, like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the jurist will stay on the bench too long, die in office, and allow a Republican president to name her successor. He is concerned that she has diabetes, ignoring that when he voted to confirm her, she had the same life-long illness.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who would like the resignation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, will be 82 when his current term expires. Coming from Connecticut, he would almost certainly be replaced by another Democrat when either he or his term expires.

The senator, more than the justice, illustrates a major problem with American politics today. Our leaders are too old.

Donald Trump and the media regularly point out President Joe Biden’s advanced age.  At 81, he is the oldest U.S. president.  Trump comes in second.

Obviously, there is a chance that an older president will die in office. Why put the country to such a test?  And if there is a real concern, that makes the choice between their running mates as important as the top of the ticket.  That could play out this year, though each candidate seems to think himself quite durable.

But equally important is whether an older person is able to sense and understand the values, concerns and interests of much younger people.  Simply put, our leaders may be out of touch with a lot of the population, including with its language and culture.

This lack of awareness of the sentiments of middle-aged and younger voters has been brought home by the Israel-Gaza conflict.  Support for Israel has long been a part of the fabric of American politics.  In today’s war, it manifests itself in the outpouring of military aid for Israel and frequent support for it at the U.N.

But many younger Democrats are openly dissatisfied with Biden’s support for Israel.  They want to see the U.S. withhold arms supplies until Israel agrees to a ceasefire.  Biden won’t go that far, possibly reasoning that those voters will remain faithful when it comes down to a choice between him and Trump.  In a close race, however, he may lose their needed enthusiasm.

In this context, it is worth watching Vice President Kamala Harris closely.  She may be trying to shore up the Democrats’ progressive wing and also to prepare for her own political future by sending more sympathetic signals to liberals.

The problem of age does not stop with the presidency.  In general, Congress is also out of line with the population it represents.  That is especially true for the U.S. Senate.

Blumenthal now ranks eighth in age among the 100 senators.  Maine’s Angus King, 80, ranks sixth. If reelected this year, he has a good chance of finishing his term in 2031 as the oldest senator. Though independent, he aligns with the Democrats.

The Connecticut senator worries that a departing Sotomayor could be replaced by a Republican president, if Biden loses.  When a Senate vacancy occurs, the home-state governor appoints a replacement.  Gov. Joe Brennan appointed George Mitchell to the Senate.  In his next term King could serve alongside as many as three different governors.  Might one of them be a Republican?

About one-third of the senators, including Maine’s Susan Collins and King, are over 70.  Only slightly more than 11 percent of the total population is past 70.  For this to reflect a representative democracy, one must believe that older is wiser. 

The House of Representatives average age is lower than the Senate’s.  Maine’s Rep. Jared Golden is the 41^st youngest representative out of a House of 435 members.  But about 19 percent of House members are over 70.

The solution to the age question won’t be left to officeholders who voluntarily decide to depart because they believe they are too old.  Retirement is up to the voters, and age should be a factor among others in determining whether candidates merit holding public office. Clearly, the judgment should recognize that not everybody ages at the same rate.

U.S. Supreme Court openings have not usually influenced voters’ choices of president or senators who must confirm judicial appointments.  Trump promised to appoint justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, and, with a GOP Senate, he did.  In 2016, younger women did not mobilize against him to the degree they actively back abortion rights Democrats today.

This year, more than 50 senators and representatives are not seeking reelection.  Some have quit early, and departing incumbents say they are fed up with the partisan political atmosphere in which they can accomplish little.  The vacancies created this year could offer the opportunity for younger leadership.

 

Trump’s N.Y. criminal trial: Remembering Al Capone

 

Gordon L. Weil

If you recall the movie “The Untouchables,” you may remember that gangster Al Capone, called “America’s Public Enemy No. 1,” was ultimately tried and convicted for income tax evasion.  He was not tried for the far more dramatic gangland killings for which he was widely thought responsible.

Donald Trump now becomes the first American president on trial for alleged crimes. The 34 charges by the New York County District Attorney are not for tampering with the 2000 vote count or causing the attack on the Capitol.  They are simply for falsifying business records in connection with the 2016 election. 

The charges say Trump acted “with intent to defraud and commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.”

He had made an arrangement with Michael Cohen, who was his lawyer, and the National Enquirer newspaper to “catch and kill” stories that could harm his candidacy for president.  Trump, the lawyer and the rumor-spreading tabloid cooperated on three matters.

The first involved a former doorman at Trump Tower, who claimed that the candidate had fathered a child out of wedlock.  The doorman wanted $30,000.  This was to be paid until the National Enquirer found the claim was false.  But Cohen asked its boss not to dismiss the demand until after the election, so it could be easily forgotten no matter the outcome.

The second involved Woman 1, former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who said that she had a sexual relationship with Trump while he was married.  She was paid $150,000 by the National Enquirer, which would never publish her article about the relationship but promised to give her some free publicity. 

The third involved Woman 2, adult actress Stormy Daniels. Just three days after the release of the “Hollywood Access” video that revealed Trump’s predatory attitude toward women, she contacted him threatening to disclose her affair with him.  He agreed for the National Enquirer to pay her $130,000 for exclusive rights to her story.

Trump hoped to delay the deal until after the election.  As voting day approached, Daniels made clear she was ready to go public.  Trump asked Cohen to make the payment and committed to reimbursing his lawyer.

Cohen drew on his home equity line of credit and placed the funds in a new company he had created for the purpose of the deal.  He then transferred $130,000 to Daniels’ lawyer.  She remained quiet during the campaign.

Trump personally and the Trump organization would repay Cohen.  He would get twice what he had paid to Daniels so as to cover the income taxes on what he received.  He would also get a $60,000 bonus.  The full $420,000 would go to Cohen in $35,000 monthly payments over the course of  2017.

The payments would go onto Trump’s books as amounts due under a retainer agreement with Cohen.  That way Cohen would treat them as taxable income and Trump could treat them as a tax-deductible business expense.  The only problem was that there was no such retainer agreement at any time.

Eventually, the federal government caught up with the arrangements, thanks to Daniels.  Cohen was convicted of tax and campaign law felonies relating to Woman 1 and Woman 2.  Cohen served a prison term for his actions. The National Enquirer openly admitted the scheme and its role in it.  It was not charged.  The evidence from both contributed to Trump’s criminal indictment.

The indictment lists the 34 records that are alleged to be untrue and used to disguise attempts to prevent disclosures unfavorable to Trump and to enable him to deduct the Cohen payments from his taxable income.  The records are in the hands of the prosecution.  Both New York State and New York City have income taxes.

This case is entirely different from the civil case, now on appeal, in which Trump was held responsible for making false statements to banks and others about his assets, a violation of New York law no matter the presence or absence of direct harm to others.

It may prove difficult for Trump to win on the facts, which are decided by a jury.  He may argue that what he did broke no law or that the law does not apply to him for any one of a number of reasons.  He is likely to claim the charges were purely political in intent and should not be allowed to disrupt his political campaign.

The judge will decide on these claims and, in effect, already has.  Trump will certainly appeal an adverse decision through the New York judicial system. This may take time, which could work to his advantage.  He might assert that, because all appeals had not been exhausted, he has not yet been found guilty.

In the end, a major potential campaign violation and tax scheme has boiled down to the seemingly routine matter of falsifying business records. What voters make of these proceedings is not a judicial matter and won’t be decided in court.

 

Why Trump Gains Support

 His bonanza reveal a secret to his success

Gordon L. Weil


Donald Trump is a lucky person.

His social media website goes public, and he gains a bonanza worth billions

He is indicted for crimes and with each new charge, he seems to become more popular.

He holds a campaign fundraiser and rakes in tens of millions of dollars from billionaires, even though some of that money is likely to be siphoned off to pay his legal expenses.

He is generally thought to be leading President Joe Biden in his effort to regain the White House.

His popularity is often explained as showing that his core supporters have formed a cult and, like any cultists, they blindly support their leader.

But the recent explosion in the value of his social media company has prompted a closer look at why he has progressed so far.

The company has suffered a one-year loss of $58 million on total revenues of $4.1million (not billion). The company might be worth about $41 million in a normal market. With Trump’s involvement, its market value is about $5 billion.

One explanation is that the more investments get away from real value the more valuable they become. Many are “derivatives” – investments that are essentially bets on other investments or simply on other bets. They are a form of gambling. That may explain the meteoric rise of Bitcoin, a crypto-currency that is more crypto than currency.

But that would not explain why some of the wealthiest people still line up to back Trump. One suggestion is that their support and that of other potential Trump voters is a matter of what is called “motivated reasoning.”

This theory says that people allow their biases to affect how they see new information. They favor news that lines up with their beliefs and reject evidence that disagrees. Fact checking simply doesn’t matter. This analysis has been around for a long time, and it could boost Trump’s success. And some progressives also think this way.

It happens in a casino when a person wins a bet and then keeps on making losing but hopeful bets. In this case, something inevitably happens, and this is not a theory. It’s called “gambler’s ruin.” When you bet long enough against the house with its endless resources, you lose.

The focus must not be what Trump’ social media investment will turn out to really be worth or if his trials, win or lose, are political and should be ignored, but when the gamble fails. And the question is not only if Trump is the gambler, but if the U.S. would also be if he’s president.

Biden gets little support from backers engaged in motivated reasoning. Trump’s advantage may be a key element in his lead over the president, leaving Biden to argue that his record should gain him the political credit he needs to win.

The biggest issue may be the economy, because many voters appear to believe they are suffering from difficult times as their incomes increase more slowly than their expenses. Biden cannot convince them that the economy is in good shape and getting better.

That has to be frustrating because of motivated reasoning based on the belief the economy is in bad shape and is still wobbling. The effects of the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid pandemic have created beliefs that stand in the way of the facts. In reality, inflation is down, wages are rising faster than prices, unemployment is low and interest rates are at average levels.

Interest rates may not be interesting, but they are probably the key economic factor that can improve Biden’s chances. In fighting past crises, the Federal Reserve kept rates at close to zero. Then, the Fed raised them to block inflation resulting from a hot economy.

The central bank’s policies have worked. The effects on employment and wages have been positive, though prices had to increase but that growth has been cut in half. In effect, after about 16 years of crisis economics in which people were sent negative signals by the Treasury Department and the Fed, the economy looks like it is settling back to normal.

The Fed lower interest rates this year. It operates entirely independently of the rest of the government, but Trump has already suggested that any rate reductions will be intended to help Biden. While the president has nothing to do with Fed policy, Trump will be giving him credit for taking popular action.

The biggest issue may be continued uncertainty about the future. Will either Biden or Trump be able to provide the sense of stability missing since the financial crisis? Trump preaches fear that matters are growing worse, and he gains support. Biden struggles to break through the barrier of the public’s own worried expectations.

Traditional GOP could swing election

Gordon L. Weil

The political guesswork is that the presidential and congressional elections this year will be settled by narrow margins.

Speculation focuses on several swing groups that could play key roles in the races.

Will the abortion issue bring a large turnout of women to support the Democrats?

Will President Biden’s lingering support for Israel in the Gaza War turn off liberal Democrats who will stay home?

Are Black and Hispanic voters drifting toward the GOP, while union members are returning to the Democrats?

Would a Trump criminal conviction lead some of his core backers to stay home or energize them?

One possible swing group may have been overlooked. If loyal Republicans who had previously backed Donald Trump and his handpicked candidates choose to sit out the elections, they could have a major impact on the GOP’s chances.

Traditional Republicans must be added to the list of swing voters. Having taken over the GOP, Trump labels many lifelong party voters as RINOs – Republicans in Name Only. Many obviously resent being pushed aside by a person they may regard as a RINO,

Although she has not backed Trump in the past, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins reflects the new wave of frustration of traditional, establishment party members when she says, “I don’t think it should surprise anyone that I will not support him.” She remains a loyal Republican.

Several other GOP leaders have said they will not support Trump or refuse to say what they might do. Would former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, former candidate Nikki Haley, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and Collins accept a Republican defeat to revive the Grand Old Party?

It’s difficult to gauge the strength of most swing groups, but the potential power of non-Trump Republicans can be more easily estimated. Voting in key state races in 2022 and 2024 plus this year’s GOP primaries provide some helpful numbers.

In 2020, Biden won close victories in five swing states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Four years earlier, Trump had carried all of them, also by narrow margins. Biden relied on those states to defeat Trump, though he faced his opponent’s unproven claims of election fraud.

In each of these states, both candidates improved on their party’s past presidential performance. If there are GOP defections from Trump this time for reasons ranging from the Capitol insurrection to his criminal cases, Biden might more easily hold onto all or most of these states. But he might face Democratic defectors in Georgia.

It would take three of these states moving from Biden to Trump for the former president to gain essential support. In 2022, four of them elected or reelected Democratic governors. If Trump really faces more defections by traditional Republicans, any losses in these states could prove costly to him.

Three of these swing states held GOP primaries before former South Carolina Gov. Haley withdrew. In Arizona, she received 110,000 votes. In Georgia, she gained 77,000 and in Michigan she tallied 296,000 votes. If some of these people had voted for Trump in 2020 but won’t back him now, their lack of support could boost Biden’s grip on those states.

At least one additional state could become much closer to helping Biden, if Trump-designated RINOs defect from him.

In North Carolina, Trump defeated Biden in 2020 by 74,000 votes. In this year’s GOP primary for governor, the Trump-favored candidate defeated two anti-Trump Republicans who together received 191,000 votes. A loss of some of these voters could give North Carolina, with as many electoral votes as Georgia, to Biden.

More improbable but still worth attention is Florida. Trump defeated Biden by 372,000 votes in 2020. In this year’s GOP presidential primary, Haley received 155,000 votes. If these were usual Republican voters who would not now stick with Trump, their absence could greatly narrow his lead. Florida was formerly a swing state and could head back in that direction.

Two other electoral votes could be affected by Trump defectors. Maine and Nebraska each choose some presidential electors by congressional district. In 2020, Biden won Nebraska’s second district and could hold onto it. Maine’s second district could flip from Trump to Biden if the former president dropped about 8,000 votes.

The presidential campaign will undoubtedly change in the coming months. Polling predictions likely will vary over time and could turn out to be flat wrong if people are lying to pollsters. Future events may yet influence voters or even turn them against voting at all.

Throughout the process, it will be worth paying attention to swing groups. Not only can a relatively small number of voters determine a close outcome, but collectively they could also produce a wide victory.

Among these swing groups, follow the RINOs. They may not be extinct.

Budget fiasco harms U.S. economy

Decision just another short-term patch

Gordon L. Weil

In the middle of the night recently, while crises whirled around the world, the U.S. made a major policy move.

Not about Ukraine.  Not about immigration.  The Senate simply adopted a new temporary budget bill to keep the federal government running for six more months, setting up a crisis for just before the election. 

During the 1992 presidential election, a Clinton strategist emphasized the campaign’s focus: “It’s the economy, stupid.”  The government impacts the economy even more now through taxes and spending.  The budget matters.

It can’t seem to get the balance between them right, making borrowing money a major business of government.  The problem is that Congress and the American people like spending and hate taxes.  When it comes to Congress, that includes both Democrats and Republicans.

When the Democrats propose increased spending, they promise to pay for it by increasing taxes on the wealthy and big corporations.  When the Republicans propose cutting taxes for the same entities, they would slash non-military spending and boost borrowing.  When the two sides meet, they deadlock and must temporarily patch over their differences with more debt.

National spending falls into four major categories: Social Security, Medicare and similar programs, military, non-military and debt payments. 

Making payments on the federal debt should be beyond debate. The government has made commitments to lenders both in the U.S. and abroad.  They buy U.S. bonds, because the country always pays its debts. That has led to the American dollar serving as the world’s prime currency, contributing to the country’s role as a superpower.

Threats to America’s credit are caused by battles over the debt ceiling, but the dollar’s world role is also affected by the budget games. They raise concerns about the reliability of the U.S.

Social Security and Medicare are the so-called “third rail” of American politics.  Because these programs are so vital to so many, neither party wants to risk touching them.  They are financed by employer-employee contributions, but are nearing the point where those funds won’t cover the cost.

That leaves unpopular choices.  Raise payroll taxes or cut benefits or do both. The conversation about what to do is picking up speed as the shortfall gets closer.

Some Republicans, though not Donald Trump, want to increase the eligibility age for receiving Social Security, which would amount to a benefit cut.  A few Republicans even see these programs as “socialism” and would slash them.

Democrats would raise payroll taxes on higher income people.  That would not be enough, so they are driven toward using income taxes revenues.  If there were more workers, who would contribute to payroll taxes, it’s less likely these general funds would be needed.  That may explain why some Democrats support immigration.

There is another reason why immigration could have a positive, economic effect. China and Japan, with little immigration, are shrinking in population, and their economies suffer.   More people bring an expanded labor force and boost consumer spending.  The U.S. population will shrink without immigration, which could bring economic decline.

Social Security now provides more than half of the retirement income for more than half of its recipients.   The program may have become part of a national pension policy, not the short-term income supplement it once was.  Plus, people are living longer so more funds are needed, while there are fewer workers contributing.

House Republicans are right about the need for separate spending bills so each area of government activity gets needed attention.  But when they refuse to compromise, they leave Congress with a last-minute desperation bill.  Meanwhile, the Senate budget builders came up with separate bills, thanks partly to Sen. Susan Collins, a key Republican player on spending.

Both parties need to get more serious about dealing with the federal budget, both spending and taxes.  President Biden says he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and has had some success, but a recent report shows he has actually cut taxes.  The GOP says it dislikes deficits, but beats the Democrats in creating them.  Trump was a top-flight debt producer.

No president in decades has submitted a serious and disciplined budget.  Budgets are usually political documents with no real future.  Many depend on impossible revenues, including Biden’s this year, undoubtedly leading to more debt.  Budgets also almost never review the ongoing need for past spending decisions, partly because cutting them may cost jobs.

The media is no help, having created a permanent political campaign.  With an eye on their reelection, politicians follow the almost daily polls that supposedly transmit the popular will. The trouble is that the polls focus on the short-term.

In the current budget system nothing changes, and last-minute patches are applied to keep the government in operation. Without improved leadership looking beyond the next election, the prospect is for another midnight budget fiasco.

Israel aligns with GOP

Gaza crisis creates wedge issue 

Gordon L. Weil

Israel is part of America’s political culture. 

Since its creation in 1948, support for Israel has been constant and bipartisan.  But that is now changing.

For some, this support might have grown as a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust. For evangelical Christians, Israel as the Jewish homeland would be an essential element of their religious beliefs.

Israel’s founding also served the practical need for dealing with the end of the British Empire. The decision to grant Israel independence from British rule came in 1947, the same year that Britain quit India.  In drawing a new world map, the winners could call the shots.  President Harry Truman gave the State of Israel the American seal of approval.

Based on Jewish values and the rejection of totalitarian government in World War II, Israel promised to be a true liberal democracy, making it a rarity in the Middle East and a natural ally. And its existence could go far to reduce the Jewish Diaspora, the worldwide dispersion of the Jews, which had often exposed them to outright hostility.

Surrounded by Arab states intent on its destruction, Israel could count on the steadfast support of the U.S. and many European countries.  In terms of American domestic politics, the unified official position brought the active backing of both parties and the Jewish community.

There were at least two concrete results.  The U.S. provides massive military aid to Israel and has close intelligence ties.  Given its place in American political culture, Israel might rank alongside Britain, Canada or Australia.  This relationship came with assured American acceptance of the policies adopted by the Israeli government.

The relationship began to fray over the issue of dealing with Iran, seeking to develop nuclear weapons, which Israel already possessed. Feeling threatened, Israel wanted tough action to block Iran.  The U.S. and other major powers, including Russia and China, reached an agreement with Iran to slow its nuclear development, while moving toward further limitations.

Republicans continued to adhere to Israeli policy, while Democrats increasingly favored the negotiated approach. In 2015, the partisan break became clear when congressional Republican majority leaders invited Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress without either Israel or the GOP informing Democratic President Barack Obama.

Endorsing Israel’s position, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran agreement, and it collapsed.  He aligned with Netanyahu’s policy without serious partisan conflict, thanks to Israel’s many Democratic backers.  Iran increased as a threat and stepped up its nuclear development,

Last October 7, Hamas terrorists attacked Israel and seized hostages. Israel and most of the world community reacted in horror and strong opposition.  Israel understandably retaliated, attempting to eliminate Hamas from its home base in Gaza. It chose to obliterate large parts of Gaza rather than deploying a more surgical approach.

Its response received renewed Republican support, but revealed a growing split among Democrats.  Some believed Israel’s bombing raids were justified, while others thought they were disproportionate and unlikely to eliminate Hamas.  Over time, the opposition has grown among Democrats and also among the broader American public.

Along with the devastating attacks on Gaza, Netanyahu refused to say what he sought as the ultimate objective.  Apparently, it would not be a two-state solution, despite Israel’s previous nominal support for the idea. A single state runs directly counter to American and European positions.  As a prime financial backer of Israel, the U.S. could be worried about this policy shift,

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is America’s highest ranking Jewish elected official.  In a broad review of the Israel-Palestine situation, he said that Netanyahu should go.  GOP leaders immediately attacked Schumer for meddling in another country. The Israeli Prime Minister responded that his country was not a “banana republic,” to be pushed around by the U.S.

When President Biden agreed with Schumer, the partisan lines were firmly drawn. In effect, the American Middle East policy could no longer always follow Israel’s line.  Israel, obviously not a banana republic, has made its own decision to conduct what many see as an anti-humanitarian war.  That policy has moved Israel outside of the select circle of special American friends.

Despite Republican claims, the U.S. has intervened in other countries, including even helping overthrow an elected Iranian government.  Schumer’s statement that the present Israeli government has mistakenly dropped the two-state solution, a critically important element of U.S. policy, falls far short of treating Israel as a mere dependency.

The GOP likes single hot-button policies known as wedge issues, and is now trying to make Israel into one.  Trump, the current owner of the Republican Party, issues this godlike proclamation: “Any Jewish person that votes for the Democrats hates their religion.”

Whether that influences or changes American politics is unclear.  That Israel’s actions are influencing and changing American policy is clear.

Poll, pundits doing poor job on presidential race

 

Gordon L. Weil

In an old movie, two tribes are fighting brutally on a battlefield in what may be Afghanistan.  Suddenly, a single line of religious monks crosses the field.  The fighting abruptly halts.  All watch in silence and respect as the holy men pass, and then the battle resumes.

The same thing may be happening now in the U.S.  The monks are pollsters, revered for their objectivity and neutrality.  Media pundits are the high priests who explain the “truths” revealed by the pollsters. 

Pollsters’ truths these days are that Donald Trump leads Joe Biden in the presidential race and that, though both are old men, Biden is worryingly older than Trump.  And, while there are about eight months until the election, it’s almost over now. 

This is called conventional wisdom.  It’s not wisdom, because it could easily turn out to be wrong, but it surely is conventional.  The media promotes what’s conventional, because the pundits listen mainly to one another – a kind of herd (or “heard”) instinct.

In reality, polls may be worse than ever.  Technological change has made it more difficult for pollsters to find a truly random sample of likely voters.  That’s essential if survey responses from the 1,000 people interviewed can predict how tens of millions of people will vote.  

Many people randomly selected cannot be reached or refuse to reply, so pollsters artificially weight some participants more than others. Besides, some people don’t give honest answers. 

In the Republican Super Tuesday primaries, Trump performed less well in most states than his polling numbers had forecast.  For example, in Michigan, a swing state, 57 percent of Republicans told polls they would vote for Trump, but only 42 percent did.

Where will the lost Trump supporters go in November?  And what about those Republicans who say they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony?  Plus, what will be the effect of third parties if the race is close?  The pundits are silent.

Polls are conducted every day, and the results are instantly interpreted by the journalistic herd to suggest to lowly voters what we will do eight months from now. Campaigns and voters may make decisions based on the doubtful data stated as conventional wisdom. 

In short, statistical guesses are treated as sure things.  Excessive reliance on polling misleads and distorts the election process.

By the way, there is one area where we should consider scientific statistics – the age of the candidates.  The media constantly focuses on doubts about Biden’s age but much less on Trump’s.  It ignores so-called “actuarial tables.”

The U.S. government must calculate how long people at each age will live in order to know the future cost of Social Security benefits.  Highly trained and experienced experts, the actuaries, determine how many more years a man or woman at each age is expected to live.  They set life expectancy at the age to be reached by at least half the people born in the same year. 

They calculate with great accuracy how long men the ages of Trump and Biden will live. Trump would be 78 at the start of the next presidential term; Biden would be 82.  At that time, Trump’s life expectancy would be 88, while Biden’s would be 90.  That means either would have a good chance of serving a full presidential term. 

So, the age difference does not particularly favor Trump.  But they are both old men and both are gaffe-prone.  Either could make such a disastrous error in campaigning that it would seriously threaten their electoral chances. No pollster can take that into account, though both parties and the voters may.

Finally, given their ages, will the election focus less on the two men and more on their two running mates?  If voters believe both are dangerously old, they could focus on the vice-presidential candidates.  Their debate could be the most important ever for the number two slot, especially if one or both of the presidential candidates won’t debate.

The biggest and most public decision a presidential candidate makes during a campaign is the selection of their running mate.  Biden’s is known and Trump’s will be a person who hews loyally to his positions.  Either must be viewed as a possible president, maybe even a likely one.  That could make this election more about the running mates than about the top of the ticket.

Finally, much will depend on the media.  The mainline media seems committed to promoting the conventional wisdom, breathlessly reported every day.  It owes the voters more than daily spot reporting and hot-off-the press analyses.  It should avoid snap conclusions drawn from flawed or possibly biased polling.

Questionable polling and hasty analyses dominate the election campaign these days. We need more light and less heat.

America’s court jester has Middle East peace plan

 

Gordon L. Weil

In medieval times, kings had court jesters who could give them serious warnings or advice, candy-coated with humor.

America may now have its own court jester:  Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”  Perhaps he’s worth our attention, even when it concerns a subject as difficult as the Gaza War.

Israel exists in a hostile corner of the Middle East.  It was created in 1948 to provide a homeland for the Jewish people, in an area that was also the home of the Palestinians. Nazi Germany had shown that, without their own territory, Jews might always face the risk of mass killing.

Israel’s survival has depended on a combination of factors.  Almost its entire Jewish population is trained and armed for defense.  The government has one of the best intelligence operations in the world.  It projects its power into neighboring countries to quash remote efforts to organize attacks against it.  And it has the unwavering support of the U.S.

When Israel was created, much of the Arab population of Palestine either fled or was driven out in what Arabs would call the “Nakba.”  But Israel continued to have Palestinians within its borders, but did not rule parts of the territory that remained under Palestinian control.

Threatened by internal Palestinian dissidents, surrounding Arab countries and terrorist groups, Israel assigned its highest priority to its national security. The U.S. was its guarantor, even if not formally.

As Israel became more secure, repelling failed military attacks, it occupied parts of Palestine that were adjacent to its territory.  Gradually, Israel has moved toward ultimately absorbing the occupied territories and maintaining dominance over the Palestinians.

That policy has been expected to provide security for Israel.  It implied that the Jewish state would keep Palestinians under its control, even if they had limited self-government.

For the Palestinians, this outcome is unacceptable, and some are willing to engage in armed resistance. Desperation has led to the formation of terrorist organizations whose agendas seem focused on continual efforts to disrupt the Israeli plan.  The murderous October 7 Hamas attack on Israel reflected enormous Arab frustration and anger with what their future might be.

The bottom line is that Israel wants to be a secure state able to protect itself, and the Palestinians want the ability to govern themselves independently.  These seem to have become mutually exclusive goals.  Sensing the Hamas attack offered it an opportunity, Israel’s response both in Gaza and the occupied West Bank has been to move toward complete control.

The U.S. and other countries have always favored two equal side-by-side states.  This is not what Israel wants.  But it is doubtful that its military control of the entire territory of Palestine would bring regional peace or enable it to completely control the Palestinians.  From American post-Civil War Reconstruction to Russian oppression of Ukraine, history shows this policy does not work.

Israel rejects a two-state solution, because it lacks confidence that the Palestinians would refrain from using their homeland to launch continual attacks on the Jewish state.  In short, Israel seems to believe that a two-state solution fails to provide what is most essential – security.

Along comes Jon Stewart.  With humor and feigned modesty, he advances a way to make the two-state solution work.  He proposes stationing a buffer force all along the border between the two states. At crossing points, each state could control the passage of people and goods.

Stewart suggests a force staffed and financed by neighboring Arab countries. Israel would get security and the Palestinians would get their own country.  Yet it’s impossible to believe that Israel would find Stewart’s arrangement durable or better than complete control of Palestine.

The neighboring countries should provide financial support.  So should the U.S. and European nations who now pay to arm one or both sides, trying to patch over an impossible regional security situation.

The border force patrols could be staffed by three elements: Israelis, Palestinians and well-trained third-party soldiers from countries outside the region.

Israel seeks to impose its own unilateral solution to its security needs, so rejects international involvement with the Palestinian problem.  But the world community has great concern about Middle East peace, and Israel is somewhat dependent for its security on the U.S. and Europe, and cannot go it alone.

Stewart’s proposal may be labeled naïve and impractical.  Yet, after 76 years, nothing else has worked.  Maybe the buffer force is not the best solution, but it’s something new and that alone makes it worthy of serious consideration. Perhaps there are other ideas still to be explored. 

The U.S., as Israel’s prime military backer, should take the lead.  The bloody Hamas-Israel confrontation requires America to do more than just plead for peace and pass the hat.

Supreme Court’s new split emerges in Colorado case

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Supreme Court’s decision preventing Colorado from keeping Donald Trump off the Republican primary ballot revealed two splits among the nine justices.

While all nine agreed that were adequate grounds to determine that a decision relating to a federal office could not be made by individual states, but only by the federal government, five justices went even further. 

The five ruled that Congress is required to pass a law giving effect to a ban on insurrectionists holding public office before they can be blocked.  In other words, the Constitution’s 14^th Amendment ban cannot function without additional congressional action.  This ruling was not necessary to overrule Colorado, but, for the first time, it established rules for the future.

Three justices disagreed vehemently and protested that it was not necessary for the majority to go that far, and it should not have.  Frequent judicial practice is to avoid making decisions that are not needed to produce a result.

Another justice wrote that sending a unified message rather than displaying a heated and unnecessary split would have been in the public interest.  This justice agreed with the three that the Court should not have gone beyond what was required and did not endorse the majority’s additional ruling. The justice said the Court should not have entered into unneeded controversy during a campaign year.

This justice stated: “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

This justice put the public interest ahead of the frequent partisanship shown even on the Supreme Court.  She is Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.  Thus, this was not a purely partisan split, though the three other justices who opposed the extra ruling had all been appointed by Democratic presidents.

So, aside from the split on the wisdom of the extra opinion, what other split existed? 

Male-female.

Five justices, all men and all GOP appointees, couldn’t resist going too far in their enthusiasm to overrule Colorado and ease Trump’s way.  Without their unnecessary and potentially controversial expansive ruling, the women might have simply agreed with the decision to block Colorado’s decision.  The result would have offered the public a unanimous and appropriate decision.

Instead, the majority got a scolding by Barrett, and the Court did nothing to repair its declining image.

Putin has lost his Ukraine gamble, but has U.S. won?

 

Gordon L. Weil

Vladimir Putin has lost in Ukraine.

Has the U.S., Ukraine’s major backer, won?

Putin stated Russia’s goals, has not met them and has no chance of success.

The U.S. has not stated America’s goals in intervening in the Ukraine War. Simply saying that the U.S. backs Ukraine has proved to be inadequate.

Putin has had two objectives. First, he wanted to prove that Ukrainians were really Russians and a second-rate version at that. In line with Soviet mythology, “the Ukraine” is merely a part of Greater Russia, he thought, and its people were inferior and subject to exploitation. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had literally starved millions of them to death in the 1930s.

Second, Putin worried that the truly independent Ukraine, having expelled his puppet president in 2014, would bring the West, notably NATO and the EU, right to Russia’s borders. He wanted Ukraine to serve as a buffer state subject to Russian domination, just as is neighboring Belarus.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine two years ago is an utter failure. Ukraine’s heroic stand to repel the Russians has made the entire world aware of the strength of its people and their rejection of Russia. Despite Putin’s hopes, there would be no Russian puppet president ruling in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.

Both the EU and NATO have begun moving toward positive consideration of Ukraine’s membership. The Russian threat has led Europe to step up its own defense efforts. If Ukraine joins NATO, the U.S. and Europe will be committed to defend it against any further Russian invasion. That could be a powerful deterrent.

Meanwhile, reacting to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden are becoming NATO members, more than doubling Russia’s border with NATO members. It would just about double again with Ukraine as a member. Putin’s policy backfired.

If defeating Putin is the U.S. objective, then it has won. But American policy still seems to support Ukraine’s hope of expelling Russia from all territory it has taken since 2014, notably eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The question is whether that’s possible.

While Russia can seize territory and bomb Ukraine, Russia itself is almost immune from attacks by Ukraine using NATO-supplied weapons. Russia’s nuclear weapons give it a military advantage that cannot readily be overcome. It’s like fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

Aside from arming Ukraine, other wartime developments have been less favorable for the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. ended the great powers’ agreement with Iran that restrained its nuclear ambitions. That propelled Iran into a closer relationship with Russia under which it supplies military drones.

Russia replaced its trade links with Europe by an enhanced relationship with China, making the Chinese Yuan into Russia’s main international exchange currency, displacing the U.S. dollar. It managed relatively easily to evade American economic sanctions, using intermediary countries like Armenia to launder transactions.

The military stalemate in Ukraine and the failure of the efforts to cripple the Russian economy, which would force it to end its invasion, have contributed to increased American political fatigue with the Ukraine War. A broad understanding that the U.S. opposes invasions to seize the territory of free countries has been turned into a partisan issue by some Republicans.

The U.S. might yield some of its leadership responsibilities to Europe if countries there continue their recent moves to strengthen their own defenses, simultaneously reducing reliance on the U.S. Would the U.S. willingly cede some of its international influence?

If not, the U.S. needs to better define its objectives in Ukraine and pursue them while leading the Western alliance. Could Russia be further weakened by continued American pressure? Or is the GOP correct that endless conflicts have become sufficiently unpopular that a path to the end of the current level of Ukraine support must be found?

A stronger policy based on American interests could require less deference to Ukraine’s understandable desire to recover all of its lost territory.

Of course, Russia must accept formally what it has already lost in Europe and recognize Ukraine as a future member of the EU and NATO. Russian troops must withdraw from territories taken in the past two years, allowing referendums on their future. As for Crimea, Ukraine could gain free access through it to the open sea, just as it gave Russia when it controlled Crimea.

The Republicans are desperate for issues to fight out with the Democrats and Ukraine increasingly looks like one. But allowing U.S. policy on Ukraine to become part of this year’s political campaign would serve Russia’s purposes and weaken America’s place in the world.

An end to conflict in Ukraine may depend on avoiding political conflict on this issue in the U.S. The first step toward ending the conflict might begin with an attempt by the parties to find a bipartisan endgame policy.

Younger generations will pick next president

 

Gordon L. Weil

America is divided. While that may hardly be news, it’s more than a matter of liberal versus conservative or Democrat versus Republican.

Part of the population seems to live in another country. It has a different history, a different culture and, as the annual additions to the dictionary reveal, a different language. It is composed of generations known as Gen X and Millennials.

It may be joining the political process at a pace unusual for younger people often more concerned with getting their feet on the ground than their hands on the ballot. It may now be the critical element in decisions about the future.

On the older side of the dividing line are the members of the Silent Generation, children of the Depression and World War II, and the Boomers, children of the post-war world. These people have been shaped by their experiences and may participate in the political process to protect what they have and to preserve what is familiar.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden are both well tied to the older side of this division. While their physical and mental abilities may raise doubts about their serving four more years, they are also out of touch with many people generations younger than them who could decide the election.

The New York Times has recently reported on an effort to encourage older people to sit down one-on-one with younger people to exchange ideas and experiences. This is not a matter of the senior educating the youth; the teaching flows both ways. Has Trump or Biden had such a conversation – a chat between equals across generation lines – in recent years?

The younger half of the population is not a “constituency” simply to be fed promises about issues like student loan forgiveness or excessive government regulation. It is a large, growing share of the population, people that the government is supposed to serve, not a segment to be patronized. But the two people who may be this year’s presidential candidates have little real contact with it.

Some analysts criticize the Democrats for yielding their traditional blue-collar constituency to the GOP. Trump’s success can easily be attributed to this failure of the pro-labor party to prevent the slide of their key backers to the pro-business Trump Republicans. But the facts about younger Americans suggest this thinking is flawed.

A few years ago, Pew Research, a respected independent organization, conducted a broad survey of the American population by age. What it discovered could give political comfort to the Democrats.

Pew found that the younger generations are better educated, wealthier, and less likely to be married than the older generations were at the same age. Among the younger people, women are better educated than men, and many more women are employed than had been the case with their parents’ generations.

A majority of Gen Xers and Millennials consider themselves liberals and Democrats or leaning that way. The breakdown for the Silent Generation and Boomers is just the reverse. But liberals outnumber conservatives, according to Pew.

The GOP may not worry about these numbers, because older people are more likely to vote than the younger generations. That could be one reason for Republicans opposing easier voting access, asserting that such access increases cheating. With limited access to the polls, newcomers may be discouraged from voting.

While it remains true that the older groups are generally more conservative than the younger groups, their ranks are not growing. Meanwhile the number of liberals is increasing, thanks to the two younger generations. This growth comes mostly from independents, who have often seen themselves as moderates.

Look at Maine. In the 1950s, when Democrat Edmund Muskie pulled off an upset to become governor, Republicans heavily outnumbered either Independents or Democrats. Now they have fallen to third position, with the Democrats leading in party registration. Muskie caused some Republicans to become Independents, and later they transitioned to the Democrats.

The challenge for the Republicans is to prevent the continued drift of voters to liberalism, difficult in light of economic and social change. That leaves the GOP with efforts to keep down voter participation in the belief that older people are less affected than new participants when they face artificial obstacles to voting. Above all, Trump must focus on conserving his support.

The Democrats must get out their vote. That, too, may be a challenge, illustrated by reactions to the Gaza conflict. Many young voters are critical of Biden’s reluctance to support a ceasefire. He seems caught between traditional but aging political allies and the younger generations, which still need to be motivated to vote and to support him.

Biden may count on winning, relying on popular dislike of Trump. The demographic divide shows he must do more to bring the younger generations, especially women, on board.

George Washington’s message to Biden, Trump: It’s time to go

Gordon L. Weil

Once again, it’s time for Presidents Day. If you ask people what it celebrates, you may get a shrug or the easy conclusion that it recognizes all the presidents since the beginning of the country.

In both federal and Maine law, the holiday is Washington’s Birthday, intended to recognize the person called “The Father of His Country.” As is my tradition, this my annual column on George Washington, who I believe is our greatest president.

We usually pick our presidents based on who they are more than because of the promises they make to us. In terms of quality of character, a standard that seems mostly forgotten these days, Washington is virtually unbeatable.

The principal measure of character is integrity. Define yourself and then live your life in line with who you are.

When Washington was selected as commanding general of the Continental Army, composed of state-contributed forces, he was possibly the only official American. Throughout his career, he defined himself that way and tried always to act in the national interest and not his personal interest. He saw his job as MAG – Make America Great.

The Constitution was only a document when he became president in1789. With Congress, he had the task of creating a new government for a new country. He could have become its king, but believed so strongly in its promise, that he chose to stick to the job of making the Constitution work. That may look easy from today’s vantage point, but it wasn’t.

Aside from creating the departments of government with their powers and responsibilities, he had to develop national policies to represent the interests and needs of about four million people from Maine, then part of Massachusetts, to Georgia. He understood that a country already so vast and destined to be much greater, could only be governed through compromise.

From the outset, he faced a conflict over the role of the federal government. On one side were the Federalists, who favored a strong central government. The Anti-Federalists, which would develop into the Democratic-Republicans, favored an agrarian country with powerful states. Alexander Hamilton led the Federalists and Thomas Jefferson headed the opposition.

Washington’s approach was to attempt to find a compromise. Of course, the majority party should have the greater influence over the final decision. Washington, though not a partisan politician, agreed with the Federalists, based largely on his unhappy experience in trying to assemble and finance a wartime army dependent on voluntary state contributions.

He succeeded in creating compromises and in developing policies that a majority could support in the national interest. The work produced controversy and Jefferson quit the government, when he did not prevail. He later came to realize that he had gone too far in opposing Washington.

Washington, the war general, became the successful post-war president because of his character. He understood that there were limits that applied to the role of government and that those limits applied to him. He would not abuse the power given to him.

He tried to show his commitment to the people, reassuring them that independence was worth the sacrifices that had been made to win it and that the government merited their support.

He had not sought the presidency. After the Revolutionary War, he returned to his farms and lands in Virginia. He had removed himself from farming and real estate investing while serving his country. One of the wealthiest people in the country, he had left virtually all management to others, however much he wanted to return to Mount Vernon.

Whatever satisfaction he took from his service as general was personal and he did not seek attention. Yet, after the Constitution was ratified, attention came to him based on his previous service. The country wanted him as their first president. His proven integrity reassured national leaders that he could head the government without seeking personal advantage.

The proof of his integrity came when he voluntarily decided that two terms as president was enough, setting a precedent that much later became part of the Constitution. He retired back home to great acclaim. That’s called “leaving on a high note.”

Washington understood a simple fact that seems to have escaped many of his successors. After a president leaves office, there’s still one more election – the judgment of history. That depends heavily on how a person conducted themselves and led the government and often relatively little on specific policies. And it may take a long while for that judgment to be made.

History’s judgment about George Washington is clear. Two of his successors are now vying to live in the White House, the house he built. They should learn at least one lesson from him before the last election they will ever face. That’s knowing when it’s time to go.

Presidential politics blocks immigration reform

 Trump rejects GOP immigration plan

Gordon L. Weil

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.”

These memorable words, attributed to the great Yogi Berra, fit the attempts to come up with an immigration policy.

In 2013, a bipartisan group of senators developed a comprehensive package on immigration policy reforms. It could pass the Senate, but the House Republicans refused to consider it and it died. Congress did nothing, and the waves of uncontrolled immigration grew larger.

Another bipartisan group of senators has agreed on a package of proposals that could be a major first step toward dealing with immigration, but the House Republican leadership blocked it and most Republican senators then finished it off. Maine’s GOP Sen. Susan Collins voted for it.

Why oppose a useful first step on immigration policy? Because it might work. Republican leaders are loyal to Donald Trump, who is likely to be their presidential candidate. He does not want President Biden to get any credit for positive progress. Trump wants no action taken until he might assume office in January 2025.

It does not matter to Trump that uncontrolled immigration at the Mexican border would continue for many months. The situation should be allowed to grow worse so that he can garner the historical credit for making it better. He has taken a similar stance on economic policy. Let it get bad, so I can fix it, he implies.

Immigration is now a major issue. Some opposition to it may be based on racism, a flat rejection of people who look different. But probably more importantly, people who are comfortable with their way of life dislike the inevitable changes that result from the increased population of people with other cultures.

Beyond such direct concerns may be a sense that, if the federal government cannot control the borders, it is failing at its core job of governing. Attempts by Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott to control his state’s borders may be the tangible expression of the broader doubts created by a lack of effective federal action.

Historically, most early immigrants to the U.S. came from northern Europe. Then, successive waves of Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans, notably Poles and Jews, arrived as the result of an open-door policy. Each faced opposition and had to overcome discrimination. Asians were long excluded.

In 1924, Congress adopted an immigration policy that favored only European immigration. Quotas were established. This system encountered relatively few problems with uncontrolled immigration.

Though some immigrants would have merited asylum from persecution in their homelands, many came in search of the economic benefits of a free society and open frontier. That probably remains true today.

Prosperity in the U.S., Europe, Canada and a few other countries has made immigration attractive to people from Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. Though new and tougher policies may aim at limiting entry, they are ineffective in halting the flow of uncontrolled immigrants. Old laws are difficult to enforce, and they fail.

In the U.S. the number of unlawful and undocumented immigrants continues to grow. Because the current system cannot stop or process the flow, many are released into the national population while awaiting decisions on their asylum claims. This is what has turned immigration into a national policy concern.

Absurd proposals for a physical barrier between the U.S. and Canada result from an effort to nationalize concerns about immigration.

Neither Trump’s wall nor Biden’s token attempt to provide a more effective screening process has worked to halt uncontrolled entry. And the U.S. simply cannot create enough effective programs in their home countries to discourage immigrants’ desire for better lives in the northern countries.

The basis of any new policy needs to begin with a determination about the feasible flow of immigrants over a decade. Immigrants provide labor and pay taxes and are new customers in a consumer-oriented economy. Desirable growth can be planned and agreed by Congress.

Border patrol agents and immigration courts need to be increased. The entry permit system requiring application outside the U.S. before border processing should be strengthened. The wall can be expanded. A trigger mechanism should allow the border to be closed. These are all GOP demands, and the Democrats accepted them. But Trump and his loyal backers killed them.

The U.S. also must deal with Mexico, which serves as a freeway to America. It gains much from being America’s favored trade partner. It is now deriving export gains as the U.S. moves away from Chinese imports. But it should not openly undermine American society and interests just as China has sought to do.

Trump offered a simple solution – build a wall paid for by Mexico. Biden failed to respond to growing public distress over the current policies. For years, Congress has allowed immigration to become excessively entangled in politics.

And uncontrolled immigration continues.

America faces historic choice

Has liberal democracy run its course? 

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. faces a particularly historic choice. It has always faced the need to balance the priority given to personal freedom with the responsibility for the community. This year, it is challenged to renew that balance.

Of the two priorities, personal freedom had greater weight in the years between the country’s founding and the Great Depression, beginning in 1929. Government’s role was limited and both the states and the private sector enjoyed great freedom of action. Individuals were expected to benefit from their actions or, if discontented, to move to the vast frontier.

But the end of the frontier coupled with the inability of traditional institutions to protect people from the heavy burden of unemployment and poverty imposed by the Depression, required broad change. In response, President Franklin D. Roosevelt led the federal government to take responsibility for the common good.

The government began to provide a social safety net, like Social Security, to ensure that all might be sustained, but it also acted directly to create temporary jobs. Its growth was greatly increased by the measures, from the military draft to industrial production, responding to the national danger caused by the Second World War.

In the decades since that war ended, the U.S. has operated under a liberal democratic system, which enhanced the rights of all Americans and continued a major role for government. American ideals, seeming to be fulfilled, and American economic and military power made the country the world’s leader.

Now, the great national debate, causing a divide almost as emotional as the differences that yielded the Civil War, is about whether to restore, so far as possible, the country as it was before Roosevelt or to develop further the system he launched.

The assumptions underlying the transformation under Roosevelt are now no longer universally accepted. Opponents claim that liberals reward dependency and do not encourage independence. They claim that people when challenged can succeed on their own, if given enough freedom. They ignore the degree to which common action through government has been woven into life.

At the same time, the post-war “peace dividend” seems no longer to exist. The ideals of liberal democracy, dependent on popular control, were widely accepted. Now, voters will support more warlike and less democratic leaders. The U.S. could back away from post-war alliances with other countries in favor of going it alone.

American relations with dictators like Putin and Xi and with autocrats in Hungary and Saudi Arabia might be conducted as purely business deals, more opportunistic than idealistic. Profit over principle.

Should the U.S. revert to traditional individualism and cede territory and influence to dictators? Are there truly American “values” that need to be protected and do people agree on them?

Our history can help in dealing with this choice. It can serve to both instruct and warn us. It should be the foundation for our actions, while not limiting our ability to respond to change with innovation.

Americans are particularly fortunate among all nations and at all times to be able to defend our values and influence the world in which we live. We have a rich land and a diverse and creative nation. We live in a country characterized by optimism and hope.

As I frequently note, in the warm 17-week Philadelphia summer of 1787, some 39 men devised the Constitution, producing the government that the 1776 Declaration of Independence had promised when it rejected the British King.

The real American Revolution was the Constitution. It ingeniously created a truly federal system with two forms of sovereignty and with a national government designed to prevent the growth of excessive power under a new kind of king.

This was something new in the world, a model for other countries. To the processes of the basic document was added a Bill of Rights, designed to protect individuals from excessive government power. Today, Americans might not fully appreciate that there may be no other country having a set of rights equal to those in the First Amendment.

When the drafters of the Constitution had just about finished their work, they realized they had not decided who was to adopt it as the supreme law of the land. Finally, one member proposed it should be the decision of “We, the People.” Constitutional conventions in each state would decide.

In the end, the government belongs to the people. The media inform and argue, but the people must make the ultimate decisions. A failure to pay attention, a willingness to make easy and ill-informed decisions, and, worst of all, not voting at all means that the government is forfeit and the Constitution turns to dust.

This year, more than selecting among candidates, the choice may well be made between the two great streams of American history.

Should courts have the last word?

Gordon L. Weil

“The ball’s in your court.”

This time-worn sentence meaning that you have the responsibility now has taken on a new and strong meaning these days.  Now, at widely separated places, the ball is in the court – of a court.

Most familiar are the cases based on charges made against former President Trump in criminal and civil case in federal and state courts.  Ultimately, many of them are likely to end up before one tribunal – the U.S. Supreme Court.

Aside from the merits of these cases against Trump is the effect of their proceedings and possible outcomes on his chances for nomination by the Republican Party and election as president.  The balls in these courts could not be more important, perhaps even less for Trump’s actions than for his political future.  By inference, the decisions could affect the country’s future.

Because these cases are so numerous, it is likely safe to say that any one of them could produce court action any day.   They provide the ongoing background for the race to the White House.

The Trump cases help place the court system itself on trial. The Supreme Court and some federal and state courts have become embroiled in current politics, which puts them in focus.  Once having begun to make rulings on political issues, the courts seem to be drawn ever more deeply into politics.   As this has happened, public confidence in the Supreme Court has fallen.

The American judicial system has made the Supreme Court the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution, a document whose application to a situation unforeseen when it was written remains to be determined.  Neither Congress nor the president have the final say; the Court alone has the last word. 

The result is that, under the U.S. system, final decisions are made by unelected justices. And their views of just what is the last word may change as rulings on race and abortion have shown.

While this situation is unlikely to change, it raises the question of whether the politics of one generation can reach across decades to later generations.  Taking American political evolution into account might reduce concerns about the politicization of the Supreme Court.  This becomes increasingly an issue.

In other countries, the question of courts making the final decision is now at the center of political controversy.  In these countries – the United Kingdom and Israel – there is no written constitution.

In the U.K., the government seeks to be able to transfer asylum seekers after arrival in its jurisdiction to the country of Rwanda in Africa.  But its Supreme Court has ruled that the U.K. agreement with Rwanda would force Britain to violate international agreements that have been adopted by its Parliament.

The British system gives the final word to Parliament and not to the Supreme Court. In the absence of a constitution, the Supreme Court must accept acts of Parliament and cannot overturn them.

Now, the government has passed a new law to overrule the U.K.’s previous acceptance of some international human rights treaties.  That would prevent the Supreme Court from applying those treaties, and the Rwanda deal could proceed.  By overruling treaties,  the U.K. could damage its international credibility. 

A similar situation has arisen in Israel.  For many years, the Supreme Court has determined if laws meet a standard of “reasonableness” and, if not, they may be overturned.  Certain laws are deemed to be basic and, generally, they may not be overturned.

The Knesset or Israeli Parliament has passed a law stripping the Supreme Court of the ability to use “reasonableness” and emphasizing the authority of the Parliament to have the last word on the law.  The Supreme Court has overruled this basic law as not meeting the rule of reasonableness.  The issue is sure to continue to be contested.

The America, British and Israeli situations revealed that determining who has the last word on the law is a major, unresolved political issue.  In the U.S., some solutions aim at finding ways to promote changes in the Supreme Court’s composition, while respecting life tenure of judges and trying to reduce its direct political involvement.

A panel at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences has proposed that justices serve on the Supreme Court for 18 years and then, without losing their standing, serve only on federal courts of appeals.  Justice David Souter of New Hampshire has done almost exactly that.

I have proposed the appointment of temporary additional justices as have been used on other federal courts.  They temporarily increase the size of the court and then fill vacancies as hey occur, restoring the original number.  Meanwhile, they can help with the workload and the court’s balance.

Either of these changes can increase the chances that the Supreme Court can be more frequently renewed.