Trump faces weak opposition

 

Gordon L. Weil

“This is a deeply divided country.”   That statement has become part of the national mantra. 

The split is between Donald Trump and his loyal Republicans and an ill-formed opposition.   Each side embodies a collection of sentiments and interests that cannot be explained simply in partisan political terms.

The Republicans discovered in 1994 the virtues of party discipline, and they have increasingly set the terms of the national debate about change.  The Democrats have seen their power fade as they coasted, propelled mainly by the dying momentum of post-World War II democratic liberalism.

With Trump as their charismatic leader, his Republican Party has become a strong political force.  It draws on people with a variety of interests, fears and claims.

It includes people who resent that a great nation cannot control its own borders.  Others reject traditional Democratic big-spending policies.  Many want change, making them loyalists of a president who brings change, whatever it may be.

The wealthy support him to obtain tax policies that further enhance their wealth, their growing assets being used by him as a measure of national economic health.  The economy operates free from protective constraints.

Social issues add people seeking to delay and undermine an inevitable shift in national power from traditional white, male control to women, Blacks and other rising groups.  Their tools include gerrymandering and voter suppression.  He inflames personal social and religious beliefs to gain votes by promising to crush alternate views and practices.

Trump has given his backers a window of opportunity.  His administration has a sense of urgency that reflects his desire to seize the moment, before it is lost.  If he can cement in place the changes he is making, it might take the nation decades to change course.   He wants his results, and he wants them now.  He rejects compromise and its proponents.

He maintains his partisan support by offering a combination of rewards for the wealthy and hope for average people.  His MAGA aura may lead some to back him, even against their own interests. 

The Trump GOP leaves behind the traditional Republicans, and emphasizes the individual over the community.  Abandoning tradition, it does not favor weak government, preferring strong, authoritarian power.  

His efforts have not produced favorable results for Trump.  A recent, reliable poll shows that none of his key policies has majority support and that he himself is unpopular.  This may increase his urgent need to produce measurable results.

There’s no organized opposition to the Trump GOP.  The leaderless and confused Democrats offer few positive proposals.  Instead, they continue to rely on the belief that Trump’s political and personal unpopularity will lead his Republicans to defeat themselves, a proven failed concept.    People don’t love Dems just because they don’t like Trump.

The Democrats have failed to mobilize support, because they are poor at communicating their position, and they lack constructive alternatives.     There’s no official party spokesperson.  Too often, when they respond, Democrats rage into democratic abstractions.

The Democrats downplay their traditional agenda in favor of issues, while most important, do not focus on the needs of many people who are struggling now.  They fail to confront creatively the immediate problems affecting many Americans – health care, housing, jobs, purchasing power, equality. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt offered universal policies benefitting people without regard to whether they were northern Blacks or white poor in the racist South.  People shared common problems that demanded common solutions.  The opposition to Trump should recreate that kind of community of interests – a coalition of Democrats, independents and traditional Republicans.

This New Coalition must be bold.  Trump builds support by his bold moves. The coalition message must have broad appeal, prepare to be vigorously and dishonestly opposed, and make its case well and persistently.  To broaden its appeal, it will have to rebalance the issues it emphasizes.

The battle against climate change while ignoring transitional job loss hasn’t worked.  Trade policy has stolen jobs.  Government cannot make vague promises about a brighter future to people worried about their jobs.  It should have a carefully phased policy that creates, say, affordable home building jobs as coal mines close, keeping people continuously employed.

People want universal health insurance, a roof over their heads, jobs, decent pay.  When such government help is reduced to pay for tax cuts, strong, creative and coordinated opposition is needed.   The Democrats often resort to righteous indignation as a response, when they need a specific platform and a voice.

Coalition policies, paid for by the community for the good of the community, contrast with abandoning those who need help.  Creative policies cost money.  But there’s no humane alternative.  The coalition needs a specific agenda, like the conservatives’ Project 2025, to provide  answers about covering the cost. 

Unquestionably, government must assume more responsibility for the common interest.  More tax revenues are needed.  So is tax reform, especially of a system that benefits so few at the expense of so many. 

Increased government action will be called socialism.  But that’s wrong and must be rejected.   For example, universal health insurance can be provided through private companies, and it works.

This frames the issue. The Trump GOP: uncompromising, authoritarian control, reduced public services, unfair tax policy.  The Coalition: restore and expand public services, open and lawful operations, tax reform.   The choice comes now.

 

 

Is US Constitution, like UN, 'empty words'?

 

Gordon L. Weil

In his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, President Trump asserted that the U.N. was “empty words.”  In an important sense, he was right.

When it was founded 80 years ago, the U.N. was supposed to be the world’s peacemaker and peacekeeper.  At its summit were placed five nations – U.S., Soviet Union, U.K., France and China.  They were the principal victors in World War II, having stamped out aggression and war. United above all by their experience, they would protect against more such conflicts.

It took less than a year for the hoped-for unified commitment of the five to fall apart. An “Iron Curtain” fell across Europe. In the East, the Soviet Union pursued historic Russian imperial policies and forced nations under Communist rule, managed in Moscow.  

Under the U.N., all five were required to act unanimously; after 1946, that became increasingly impossible.  The U.N. action against North Korea’s invasion of South Korea in 1951 was only possible because the Soviet Union was boycotting the U.N.  Over time, the U.N. played only limited roles in peacekeeping, turning its attention to mitigating the causes of conflict.

In this series of events, the U.N. Charter was not violated. It was applied, but in a manner that left it failing to pursue its original intent. Evolving beyond the terms and intentions of a founding document is perhaps inevitable as people and events change, and sometimes that can happen quickly, as with the U.N.

What has happened to the world organization is now happening in the United States.

The American system of government, initiated in the historic and innovative Constitution, was based on the common commitment of a group of leaders who shared much the same background and experience.  They expected that the system would evolve, as it must under such a brief rulebook, but would maintain the values they tried to build into the American republic.

Among the most basic of their concerns were the excessive concentration of power in a central government and in the chief executive of that government.  They rejected British royal rule and all power over the 13 colonies being exercised by London.  They also sought to protect people from oppressive rule, immune from legal review.

While the government could adopt policies required by the times, what has become a catch phrase – “a system of checks and balances” – was the byword for how the government could be kept from concentrating excess power.

The intentions of the Framers have been eroded somewhat by successive generations of national leaders of major political parties, especially in the White House and Congress.  However, in many basic respects, the Constitution has functioned as planned and in line with shared understandings.

Until now.

The Constitution risks becoming “empty words.”  The intended limitations on the power of the chief executive are being dismantled, and the effect spreads across American life, public and private.

When the words “freedom of the press” are open to unprecedented, partisan interpretation, they become “empty words.”

There appear to be two principal causes for this historic turn.  The U.S. Supreme Court sees the president as having almost unlimited executive power.  The result is that the balance has shifted from Congress to the president, thanks to the judgment of the Court.  This transfer is possible in part because many laws leave the president more discretion than has proved to be wise.

The other cause is Donald Trump’s view of his election. Not only did his win, coupled with the support of his party’s congressional majority, give him almost absolute control over all parts of federal government action, he believes, but even the power to reach beyond public institutions, using the immense government power, to influence business and personal behavior.

He abolishes agencies created and funded by law.  He fires independent regulators to replace them with his allies.  He directs prosecutors to pursue his past opponents, whom he readily says he hates.  He carries out acts of war on the high seas without the knowledge of Congress.  He uses the armed forces as domestic police.

And more.  He uses his office to enrich himself and his family to an overt and extensive degree not reached by his predecessors. He seeks to impose a set of moral values on many who have the right to their own values and to the exercise of their rights.

All of this both sets dangerous precedents for the future of the American system and has clearly changed the nation’s place in the world.

Speakers at the General Assembly spoke of the need to end the one-nation veto, now frequently used by the U.S.  It’s doubtful if that is possible without U.S. agreement.

Similarly, perhaps the Constitution should be amended.  It’s doubtful that the required 38 states would agree.

To recalibrate how the Constitution is applied requires doing just as Trump has done.  Win elections, control Congress, and add some balance to the Court.

For the present, an Iron Curtain has fallen across America. 

But we may misunderstand the two sides, so next time, I’ll take a look.

Putin can win in Ukraine

 

Gordon L. Weil

Putin is poised to achieve his key objectives in invading Ukraine.  His goals were to reverse its growing alignment with the West and to recover Russian-speaking areas in the eastern part of the country.

He had thought so little of Ukraine that he believed he would have an easy victory, possibly taking over the government and most territory.  But both Russia and the U.S. were surprised by Ukraine’s ability to resist.  Russia committed itself to fight on, even as the conflict turned into war, and the U.S. provided essential arms and munitions to Ukraine.

The U.S. and Europe were alarmed by the resurgence of aggression in Europe, and the countries there feared that Russian ambitions could extend further unless halted in Ukraine.  Under Biden, the U.S. shared their concern and determination to repel Russia.

Putin was willing to cover his bet and make almost limitless sacrifices to pursue Ukraine.  The Europeans committed to resist, but their military strength and armaments are limited and mostly dedicated to their own defenses.  They supply as much as they can, often acquired from the U.S. for hard cash.

Both Finland, with an extensive Russian border, and Sweden joined NATO.  While these developments might seem to be a setback to Putin, he appeared surprisingly unflustered.  His reaction may be the result of conclusions that events led him to draw about NATO.

As Europe tried to respond to what it saw as a real threat, it became clear that few of the 32 NATO members have military forces that can project itself beyond their own national borders.  Only Turkey, France and the U.K. have the forces under arms and the armaments needed for foreign deployment. 

France and the U.K., both nuclear states, have been creating a voluntary coalition of willing countries that would contribute forces to provide a barrier to Russian incursions into Ukraine after an end to hostilities.  But this coalition would not engage in any combat on its own.  Other European countries are providing arms support and funding.

The Europeans have also pressed hard for sanctions, which appear to have some effect on Russia. But, given its autocratic regime, its people have no choice but to make the sacrifices Putin demands of them.  So, he can maintain his offensive.

Because Putin has come to understand that NATO is reluctant to directly confront Russia, he enjoys a significant military advantage.  He can attack Ukraine without worrying about major retaliation against Russian territory.  Plus, he makes vague nuclear threats that the West won’t answer in kind.

Ukraine effectively uses its drones to attack Russian military and energy sites.  But it remains under relentless attack and needs outside support.

Keeping the war going, Putin still pursues a neutral and weak Ukraine, vulnerable to a later wave of Russian aggression.   That’s why he opposes the Coalition of the Willing forces, even only as peacekeepers, being installed in Ukraine.  He may believe that the Europeans will both understand their own limits, as he does, and grow tired of a multi-year war.

The missing piece is, of course, the U.S.  It has gone from the staunchest backer of Ukraine to an American enigma.  Trump had planned on a quick swap of Ukraine land for Russia’s ending its military action. But Putin had higher hopes, and Ukraine’s Zelenskyy could not cede territory for a Trump-made deal with no long-term protection.

When that concept failed, Trump implied that the U.S. might step up its military backing for Ukraine.  At times, however, he reduced such support and now demands payment for any arms that would be supplied.

Trump has applied sanctions against Russia, even going so far as to use them against its oil customers, notably India.  The Europeans want more pressure, and Trump indicated that he might be willing to follow their lead.  So far, nothing more has apparently happened.

He has been even careful about backstopping coalition forces if matters ever progressed to a ceasefire.  Without U.S. support, the coalition guarantee to Ukraine would be worth little.

Putin can see NATO for what it’s worth, not much of a threat and perhaps even vulnerable.  He has just begun testing Polish defenses.  Given the overwhelming influence of the U.S. in the alliance, coupled with Trump’s reluctance to act, Putin may worry less about the West and perhaps launch more unanswered incursions, while still hiding behind Russia’s borders.

Why Trump seems so impressed and influenced by Putin remains unknown, yet it is the key to saving both Ukraine and NATO.  Trump was right to push the NATO allies to do much more, but that alone is not enough.  It still comes back to him.

NATO without Trump, as it well might be, meets Putin’s goal.  So does Ukraine without Trump.

The game’s not over, but right now, Putin’s winning.

 

Constitutional test looms at Supreme Court

 

Gordon L. Weil

On Inauguration Day, President Trump issued a torrent of executive orders, aimed at reshaping the federal government; many more would follow.   Facing a flood of bad news, people affected took Trump to court.

Those affected believed they would soon gain relief from what they claimed were his illegal or unconstitutional acts.  But his supporters felt confident that, despite initial adverse rulings from lower courts they labeled as liberal, a friendlier Supreme Court would endorse his moves.

Faced with a steady flow of Trump’s executive orders, dockets expanded in every part of the country.  Federal district and appellate courts have worked nights and weekends to keep up with the cases. 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, enjoying its usual three-month break, limited itself to a few procedural orders, supporting Trump, while putting off decisions.  It hears its first case on October 6.

In July 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the president has almost unlimited executive powers, free from control by Congress or the Court.  The courts also would have “no power” to control the president.   Presumably, the courts could decide if the president enjoyed such a grant of full powers under the Constitution.

In a variety of ways, all the cases making their way to the Court will test the scope of the presidential powers that it has recognized.

Until now, Trump has asserted that the powers he exercises fall under the independent and exclusive power of the president.  In many decisions of challenges to his orders, lower federal courts have found that he violated the Constitution or laws.  They have suspended his actions, but the Supreme Court overruled them, allowing him to act for the time being.

The outcome of the legal tests between Trump and his challengers is not clear.  Some appellate decisions have been by split votes, suggesting the Supreme Court majority might see merit in either side. If the justices act based on the party of the president who appointed them, Trump could prevail.

Though many cases are pending, most fall into a few key areas.

The Constitution itself is in play.  Trump claims that the Fourteenth Amendment right to citizenship at birth, treated as absolute since it was adopted in 1868, does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants.  If the Court agrees that birthright citizenship may be conditional, the right could undergo great change.

Trump also seeks to deny due process rights to people before they are expelled from the country.  The Constitution applies to a “person” not only a “citizen,” but Trump discerns a distinction with which no court has yet agreed.

How far does the executive power extend?  The Court has already upended independent regulatory agencies by allowing the president to fire their members.  Will it allow him to fire them at will under DOGE, ignoring century-old civil service laws that protect government employees?

While the law is supposed to prevent his withholding public spending previously mandated and authorized by Congress, Trump has virtually eliminated entire agencies and their employees.  He ended programs created by law with no opposition from the Republican Congress.  If his powers extend that far, what remains of the congressional “power of the purse?”  

Trump backers claim his election victory gives him the right to implement his agenda without congressional approval.  He has removed women and Blacks from office in the belief that they had received favorable treatment.   He penalizes states and universities, stripping federal funding if they have programs to ensure equal opportunity, branding them as “woke.”

He uses the Title IX prohibition banning discrimination against women in athletics to keep trans women from women’s competitions.  Is this a matter he can decide or is it up to the states or Congress?   Maine’s Gov. Mills has asserted the state’s right in the face of retaliatory funding cuts.

Despite both history and a long-standing law, Trump deploys the military to engage in law enforcement activities meant to be under state jurisdiction.  He has sought to transform world trade by imposing heavy new tariffs using or misusing emergency powers granted by Congress.  Two courts have decided that he exceeded his authority.

Ultimately, such cases may come to the Supreme Court when it comes back to Washington next month.  The justices may take their time in deciding the many cases making their way to the Court.  A slow pace, like its recent procedural rulings in his favor, would simply allow his decisions to achieve their purposes before the Court rules on their legality.

If the Court affirms its view of virtually unlimited presidential power, as is possible, it could nullify the balance of powers in the Constitution.  If so, the Constitution itself and the Court’s own future will become hotly contested political issues.   The ultimate court will then be the voters.

In short, it will soon be crunch time for the Constitution.

Court reveals how America has changed

 

Gordon L. Weil

Maine’s highest court revealed last week how the country is changing.  It found that the U.S. Supreme Court is intentionally eroding an essential American right. 

The absolute rule of the British king, who denied people their natural rights, brought the American Revolution.  In the United States, personal freedom was always to be protected from a powerful government.

No person can be required by a government to be a witness against themselves.  They cannot involuntarily give evidence against themselves.  They can remain silent and not answer questions or undergo interrogation, and they cannot be punished for their silence.

Some states required the Bill of Rights as a condition of their ratification of the Constitution, and it was adopted.  Its Fifth Amendment included protection against testifying against oneself, applying to the federal government and later to all states.

In 1966, the U.S, Supreme Court issued its famous Miranda decision, requiring the police to inform people of their right to remain silent.  The Miranda warning became a regular part of police operations, sometimes frustrating law enforcement.

In Miranda, the Court said: “If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.”  In reviewing that requirement, the Maine Supreme Court found that, “[a]s time went on, the Supreme Court began to erode the standards by which waiver and invocation of the privilege are judged.”

The erosion consisted of obstacles to people’s natural right to remain silent or to have legal advice before answering.  The Supreme Court, possibly reflecting public sentiment, began making it more difficult for a person to benefit from what had long been considered an inherent right, deserving the automatic respect of government. 

In 1994, the Court, with a new Reagan-oriented majority, ruled that unless the person made a clear request for legal counsel, the police would have “no obligation to stop questioning the suspect.”  The Court said: “In considering how a suspect must invoke the right to counsel, we must consider the other side of the Miranda equation: the need for effective law enforcement.”

There had been no such “equation” in the Constitution; the right to silence and a counsel are unquestionable.  The Court invented the supposed equation.  The interests of the government, from whom the person should be protected by the Bill of Rights, suddenly became balanced with a person’s rights.

In 2010, the Court went even further.  It ruled that if the suspect did not answer a question about whether they understood their rights and simply remained silent, they had not clearly asserted their right and could be questioned by the police.  Their lack of understanding or feeling intimidated by the police presence were not factors to be considered.

In this case, the suspect remained silent for two hours and forty-five minutes.  Yet remaining silent was not interpreted as a sign that they wanted to remain silent.  Instead, the police kept asking questions.  Because the person finally responded to a question, the Court ruled that answer constituted the waiver of their rights, which they had not clearly claimed.

In short, simply keeping silent, even for a lengthy period of questioning, did not mean they had clearly affirmed their right to remain silent.  To have the right to remain silent, you cannot remain silent.

This watering down of the Fifth Amendment right and Miranda’s “indicates in any manner” provision, was done in the name of assisting law enforcement.  Under a Court now dominated by Reagan and his conservative successors, law enforcement would come at the expense of individual rights.    Authoritarian government is making a comeback.

Many criminal cases concern violation of state laws.  Each state has its own constitution, and may differ with federal standards, provided it supplements and does not weaken those standards.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, relying on the state constitution and its many previous rulings, declared the state has maintained the absolute protection of the individual.  “We have long held that the Maine Constitution provides greater protection against self-incrimination than that of the United States Constitution,” it said.

The U.S. Supreme Court, the current neo-conservative edition, states that the individual retains their constitutional and natural right only if they clearly assert it.  If not, they may be questioned. 

The Maine Supreme Court, the historically faithful edition, maintains that the individual retains their right unless they clearly waive it.  In Maine, the police cannot interpret a person’s uncertainty or silence as a waiver of the right to remain silent. 

Justice Arthur Goldberg once wrote in a Supreme Court decision: “If the exercise of constitutional rights will thwart the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system.”   That is where authoritarian conservatism is bringing the U.S.

[Next column covers the critical role of today’s Supreme Court.]