Artificial intelligence meets the Pope

 

AI meets the Pope

Workers matter

 

Gordon L. Weil

Last week, Pope Leo XIV issued his first encyclical, the highest expression of religious thought by the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

He takes on the growing issues around artificial intelligence, especially its effect on labor and human values. 

AI will reduce or eliminate much human work, indifferent to its social, economic and personal implications.  Leo’s statement may be the most comprehensive analysis of the deep-seated problems that AI is creating.

He recognizes that AI can change the amount and nature of employment.  “It is certainly desirable for technology to relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks and to provide intelligent support for human activity. Yet, the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule,” he wrote.

Referring to a statement of the American bishops, he noted, “work is not merely a source of income but a crucial sphere in which identity is formed, friendships and relationships are forged, practical responsibilities are learned and one’s vocation is discerned.”

Past events from the Industrial Revolution to mass production forced individuals to make difficult transitions to new economies.   Leo is not a Luddite; he does not advocate keeping dying occupations alive to safeguard jobs. 

New jobs are developing, and, instead of entirely leaving adjustment to individuals, the pope seeks a greater role for government in continually providing training to allow the workforce to develop and meet new and more complex demands.

When too much emphasis is given to profits and efficiency, individuals can become objects rather than subjects in the economy.  Leo makes it clear that AI will never be able to duplicate humanity because it relies on data and not each person’s human condition and experience.  Economic success is not enough.   AI must fit into a picture of human needs and abilities.  

AI should bring greater efficiency and productivity.  That will mean more effective use of time, requiring higher skill levels.   Just as the assembly line reduced the number or workers and the length of the work week to produce autos, AI raises the need to reexamine what constitutes full-time work.

The eight-hour day and 40-hour week have a long history, growing out of labor demands and economic needs in the Nineteenth Century.  They became American law in 1937, setting a national standard for the required payment of overtime wages.

The work week gradually declined to that point as technical developments reduced the need for manual labor and unions effectively organized.  Forty hours was a political decision and was not based on any study of productivity or worker efficiency.

A new look at labor and leisure is overdue, and AI will force the issue.  The variables are in hours, vacations and holidays.  Even today, the U.S. is far out of step with the rest of the developed world.

According to the International Labor Organization, a UN agency, and other sources, here are some comparisons:

                                    Hours/workweek                     Paid vacation/holidays                        

            U.S.                 36.27                                       0                                

            Canada            31.86                                       17-33              

            U.K.                 31.17                                       28-30

            France             30.76                                       35

            Germany         29.66                                       30

            Denmark         28.91                                       35-40

            Netherlands     26.57                                       28

 

One reason why workweeks fall below 40 hours is the presence of part-time workers. The length of the average workweek in the U.S. has steadily declined. Paid days-off in other countries are required by law; there is no requirement in U.S. law.

 

Even without taking into account the impact of AI and technology, the U.S. could align better with other countries.   Employers could be required to give paid time off.   Now, when new federal holidays are added, they usually produce little benefit to workers other than those employed by government.

By itself, this change would contribute to easing employment reduction resulting from AI.  It would be resisted by some businesses, but the tax system could compel compliance.

The coming needs of the economy should begin to be identified rather than being left to emerge later.

The reduction in the number of required hours of work annually would contribute to the growth of the entertainment and recreation sectors.   More public and low-cost facilities will be needed, financed by fees and admissions.  This widely distributed development will create new needs for labor.

Not only will these sectors create new jobs, especially at the entry level, but they will respond to the growth in leisure time.     Government will need to assume a greater responsibility in encouraging or offering options in these sectors.

Another sector that now demands increased labor, also often at the entry level, is elder care.  The American population is aging, creating the need for more care facilities.  This has been an entry point to the economy for recent immigrants.  A more systematic response is needed.

AI need not be seen as a threat to workers, but it must be understood as requiring a new economic and social revolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Immigration policy: U.S. urgently needs an answer

Immigration policy: pride and prejudice

U.S. needs an answer

 

Gordon L. Weil

Immigration has become a bedrock issue in the U.S. and many European countries.  

Coming up with an American immigration policy has become so divisive that achieving consensus seems impossible.  Two presidents have brought the country to the point where a solution is stalemated.

A cornerstone of Donald Trump’s presidency has been ending unauthorized or illegal immigration.  He has succeeded in almost shutting down illegal entries over the southern border.  He has also pushed efforts to remove long-time, productive residents whose elimination would boost the number against whom he had moved.  He now targets legal immigration.

Joe Biden allowed foreigners to pour across the southern border.  He lacked an immigration policy, perhaps because he had other priorities.  He clearly reversed Trump’s first term approach, possibly to appeal to minority voters.  Instead, he created broad public concern that the U.S. could not even control its own borders.  He set the stage for the Trump revival.

The original Americans, aside from the Indians, were immigrants from western Europe.  Racially they and their descendants are white.   Whatever the Constitution and laws might say, their followers have expected that the country would remain predominantly white, and Blacks would remain subservient.  Underlying the issue of immigration policy is race. 

The most obvious expression of this sentiment was the exclusion of Chinese for many decades.  Today’s unfounded claim that the U.S. is a Christian country carries the implicit message that the white founders set binding terms for the future.  Minorities remain at the sufferance of the majority.

Demographic projections indicate that the U.S. will be majority non-white in two or three decades.  If voters would cling to white control, they could oppose immigration on the grounds that new arrivals will accelerate change in the nation’s racial make-up.  To some, the election of President Obama was a warning.

Humanitarian and economic causes have led millions to seek new homes in countries with stable, democratic governments and the opportunity for better lives.  Some want asylum and many want economic and social freedom.  The response can be a mixture of pride and prejudice.

Their influx has raised concerns in potential host countries.  People worry about the economic and social change resulting from major additions to the national population and the political power of the newcomers that could disrupt traditional patterns of control.

In the U.S., the issues that arise from immigration have become embedded in the basic discourse about the nation’s future.  Some concepts are widely accepted, while others are seriously challenged.

Americans generally understand that their country is a nation of immigrants.  Waves of people from foreign countries have flowed into the U.S. throughout virtually all its existence.  Each group has faced resistance and even discrimination in the decades after their arrival.  African Americans, who did not migrate willingly, suffer exceptional indignity.

Immigration has been a major source of population growth.  More people has meant more workers able to operate the tools of virtually all aspects of the nation’s stunning economic growth.  Their growing personal prosperity has created a burgeoning consumer economy.  American economic greatness has depended on immigration.

Moving beyond the sentiment that the national territory was large enough to accommodate millions more, the U.S. adopted an immigration policy.   While new arrivals should continue to be welcomed, the country could reasonably meter the flow to ensure stability.

Trump has been intent on expelling as many unauthorized residents as possible.  It proved relatively easy to identify long-term, law-abiding illegal entrants and attempt to expel them to make his numbers look good.

The public concern about immigration did not focus on such people but rather on recent and lawbreaking immigrants.  While reassured about border security, the public was not enthusiastic about the removal of contributing community members or separating parents from children, who might be citizens.  Nor was ICE’s denial of their due process rights.

Trump wants to reverse the citizenship of immigrant children born in the U.S. by a new interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.  He blocks the entry of people from some countries.  He wants green card applicants to leave the country and reapply from their home countries.

He has recently indicated that he would like to roll back legal immigration.  The number of legal immigrants and refugees was virtually identical in 2024 to what it was in 2015.  There is no rising tide to be blocked unless race is the issue.

Immigration is vital to the economy.  In 2023, immigrants contributed $2.6 trillion, about 13 percent of Gross Domestic Product.  They paid $492 billion in taxes.  After the slowdown in immigration, American economic growth may slow.

Trump’s total anti-immigrant policy, reaching productive residents, will reduce the size of the U.S. population and of the American economy.  The Democrats offer no alternative.  This is where bipartisan leadership must begin.

 

Redistricting prompts new look at House size

 

Redistricting prompts a new look at the oldest subject

This should be election issue

 

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. House should take a new look at an old subject.  It should consider adding members.

Frenzied congressional redistricting and the failure of Congress have made this proposal an option that merits serious and early consideration.  This column recaptures and updates my earlier pieces.

The Constitution’s Framers debated the size of the House.  The argument became so heated that it was the only time that George Washington spoke on issue at the Constitutional Convention.

How many people should each House member represent?  Too few would be undemocratic but too many might be unmanageable.  James Madison, the chief drafter and later the fourth president, argued the problem would solve itself.  As more states joined, the House would naturally grow from the original 65.

That worked until 1900, when the number of members reached at 435.  In 1929, it was formally frozen there.  When five more territories became states, their seats were taken from other states.

Today, the number of people in some House districts is larger that the entire population of some states.  Each Maine district includes more people than the entire population of the state of Wyoming.   That means a Wyoming voter has more power than a Maine voter and far more than a voter in California.

An easy path to voter equality would be to set the population for each district across the country at the population of the smallest state, Wyoming.  I calculate that would increase the House to about 573 members, an added 138 seats.  An even larger House could make sense.

Adding new states should mean more seats were added, as originally intended.  The number of House seats should also increase as the national population grows. The purpose should be to keep the House representative and its members in touch with voters.

That increase would still leave the U.S. with a higher population per voter than any other major nation.  Citizens would remain distant from their representatives, and members might remain limited as true representatives of their electorate.

One advantage of expansion would be the need for complete redistricting into smaller districts.  Racial or political gerrymandering would become more difficult as districts became more compact. And it would certainly open the way for many new faces in Congress, which could enable more women and minorities to gain seats.

With a larger House, each member would not need to be assigned to multiple committees. Assigned to fewer committees, they would have time to become more expert.  There might also be added committees or subcommittees, allowing each to have a far sharper focus than is possible today.

The Supreme Court is moving steadily toward stripping regulatory agencies of their independent powers. When it completes its works, their decision-making powers would end up with the president.  Yet regulation is nothing more than powers that Congress could itself exercise by law.  Congress, not the president, could take on more responsibility.

A larger Congress should include enough members that focused House committees could take on more detailed decision-making.  Such targeted committees could produce strict, general rules, allowing less room for special interests to work out deals with regulators behind closed doors.

It would also be possible to convert independent agencies into advisory adjuncts of Congress.  Their decisions would be recommendations, which could then be approved or disapproved by a vote of the relevant committee and, ultimately, the full Congress.  This procedure would still retain the presidential veto power, but White House control would no longer be absolute.

If Congress doesn’t act, it will keep losing its powers to the president.

There’s another benefit to the proposal for expanding the House.  Many want the electoral vote for president to better align with the popular vote.  One major reason they can be misaligned is the unbalanced voting power of some states over others. Each state’s electoral vote is the sum of the number of its House and Senate members.

If the House were larger, the Electoral College would be larger and the Senate votes would be diluted.  The number of voters per electoral vote would be closer to equal than it is now.  With electoral votes better distributed by population, the electoral vote would come closer to reflecting the popular will. 

Of course, each state would retain at least one House seat and two senators, no matter its population.  That’s what the Constitution requires and would prevent a fully popular vote for president.

While amending the Constitution is almost impossible given today’s political climate and the influence of the Supreme Court, some issues like term limits or maximum ages of officials cannot be addressed. But Congress itself can change the number of House members, which could breathe some new life into a failing system.

House expansion is not political daydreaming; it could turn out to be critically important.

 

Trump’s control grows as he wins key race

 

Trump’s control grows as he wins key race

Maine could see what Massie faced

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Massie primary in Kentucky answered a lot of questions.

The race, testing GOP Rep. Thomas Massie’s anti-Trump appeal, produced some clear messages, including at least one that could affect Maine.

This contest was the most expensive congressional primary in history.  It showed that Trump backers are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to help him in his quest to maintain domination of Congress.   They may reasonably expect favorable treatment of their interests – ranging from backing Israel to reduced environmental regulation – in return.

In fact, his endorsement may matter less than the Trump oligarchy in operation.  He has amassed a huge war chest for the congressional elections in November, and the Massie race revealed that political money can make a difference.  Massie did well in fundraising, but trailed Ed Gallrein, Trump’s pick, and lost by almost 10 percent in a district that he had easily held.

A key part of Gallrein’s financial support came from the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee and Miriam Adelson, a major backer of Israel.  Massie has opposed the Iran war and, as a balanced-budget libertarian, additional funding for Israel’s military.  His extreme positions aroused the opposition of pro-Israel forces.

In Maine, if Graham Platner is the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, he might expect an outpouring of pro-Israel funding to support Sen. Susan Collins, like what happened in Kentucky.  Platner is tagged with being pro-Palestinian.  Because the Democrats see this Senate seat as a likely pick-up, the result could become a big spending duel. 

Kentucky is a solidly Republican state when in federal elections; it is a solid-Trump state.   While almost two-thirds of Americans reportedly oppose the Iran war, a strong majority of Republicans supports it.  Any concern they may have about rising prices, especially at the gas pump, matters less than fidelity to Trump. 

If any further proof were needed, the Massie defeat emphasized that the traditional GOP, conservative on economic policy and moderate on social policy, no longer exists.  The party has been completely absorbed by Trump and his MAGA movement.  The Republican Party is his to command.

Though Trump will be a true lame duck president beginning next January, there is yet no sign that his power over the GOP is fading.  Flying in the face of Republican Senate leadership on the same day as the Massie race, he endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a MAGA man, over Sen. John Cornyn.  Temporarily alienating his own Senate party did not worry Trump.

A Massie victory might have encouraged other GOP House members to put some distance between themselves and Trump during this fall’s campaign.  But they will worry that GOP support would weaken unless they keep in Trump’s favor.  Even after the possibility of primary challenges has past, many will want his seal of approval and campaign cash.

Given the strong Republican loyalty to Trump, the Democrats would need to do more than run on the simple promise of not being Trumpers.  They need an agenda and to avoid turning the race for their party’s presidential nomination into a bloody battle.  Whether they can do either are open questions.  Maybe Trump will stumble, but he seems to be impervious to criticism.

There’s solid evidence that allegiance to Trump is based more on fear than fidelity.  After Louisiana Republicans dumped Sen. Bill Cassidy, he immediately joined GOP dissidents who want the Iran war to pass congressional scrutiny.  And since North Carolina Sen. Tom Tillis decided not to seek reelection, he has become a more open Trump skeptic.

As libertarians, Massie and Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul oppose authoritarianism à la Trump.  They will not concede their principles even under the threat of losing elections.  Much of the Massie agenda is extreme right-wing, out of touch with public needs and political reality.  But he is a person of principle, a rarity in a world where appeasing Trump may be a necessity.

In his concession speech, Massie said, “what started out as an election turned into a movement.”  He argued that this new political movement is composed of younger voters who do not accept unlimited government spending and foreign involvement.  His platform is starkly conservative, but insistent on the Bill of Rights.

Massie obviously expects to be a leader of this movement.  Trump and MAGA have undoubtedly not seen the last of him.  He might even run for president in 2028, either in Republican primaries or as the Libertarian Party candidate.

Now, Trump can feel confident in his political position, although the Iran war and its economic impact weigh heavily in the electoral balance.   Will a majority of voters in districts across the country vote this November in their own economic interests or will they remain loyal to the man who has captured the political system?

 

Maine Democratic Senate primary -- a new twist

 

A twist in Maine’s Democratic Senate primary

Gordon L. Weil 

“It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”   That wisdom of Yogi Berra may still be working in Maine.

In the Democratic primary race, commentary has assumed that Graham Platner, a Bernie Sanders’ backed progressive who has said and done some controversial things, will be the nominee to face incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins.  That’s because Gov. Janet Mills suspended her campaign when faced with poor poll results and being outspent.

Ever since, Platner has been under constant attack from outside groups apparently aligned with Collins.  For them, the fall campaign is already under way.  Commentaries in national media pick at Platner, though some may marvel at his appeal in changing the focus of the Democratic Party.

However, it’s possible that the attacks on Platner are having an almost subterranean effect on the June 9 Democratic primary.

Mills suspended her campaign, but she did not withdraw, and she has not endorsed Platner.  Her name remains on the ballot along with Platner and David Costello, who ran in 2024 as the Democratic candidate against Independent Sen. Angus King. 

The national and state media has assumed that the primary race will be a walk-in for Platner.   It may be somewhat more complicated than that.

The primary will be conducted under ranked choice voting.  A Democratic voter could vote for all three candidates in rank order.

Some voters say they will put Mills in first place on the ballot.  That’s not likely to give her the election, but it could complicate matters.  If Costello, who received over 10 percent of the general election vote two years ago, becomes a factor, the outcome could be less clear. 

Platner might want to encourage bullet voting, where his backers vote only for him, but that’s a risk.  He would need to win an outright majority, as the media assumes.

But two factors need to be taken into account.  First, there are supposed to be debates.  Platner, acting as if that’s no longer necessary, says he won’t participate.  Costello obviously would show up.

What about Mills?  The editorial page editor of Maine’s largest newspaper advocated yesterday that Mills should participate in the debates to give Platner a “stress test.”  If you believe in conspiracies, this is surely a way to revive Mills’ candidacy.

Having merely suspended her campaign but not her candidacy, she could seek to be included in a debate.  Her involvement would ensure increased visibility for Costello, who is almost entirely ignored.

The other factor is how the primary is seen in Maine.  While the national media focus on Platner as a sign of the rise of the Democrat’s progressive wing, many Maine voters pay more attention to his image as an average guy, outspoken and pushing real change.  He needs to maintain that image in the face of continuing GOP attacks.

Mills has been a right-of-center Democrat, but a tough Trump opponent, so she has continuing appeal with some in the party.  She could get some votes, and Costello could be her back-up.  We could learn more about ranked choice voting, than we think we know.  Democrats and unenrolled voters can participate in the primary.

Does this change the expected outcome?  Probably not, but there’s more going on below the superficial commentary in the national media.  That makes this primary race one to watch.

Multi-party Congress could save U.S. government

 

Multi-party Congress could save U.S. system

The new American Parliament

 

Gordon L. Weil

American politics are broken.

As recently as the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the two parties found ways to compromise, constructively if not consistently.  Partisanship existed, but without degenerating into personal animosity or challenges to the patriotism of rivals.

Forget about that.  It’s gone.

The prime evidence is the competitive congressional redistricting that looks to take place every other year, despite the Constitution’s requirement that it occur once a decade.  The historical system, allowing voters to easily change their preference between the parties, is being replaced by efforts to assure the long-term political dominance of the Republican Party.

Throughout history, American politics have undergone deep divisions.  Obviously, the secession of the Southern states is the leading example.  But the unique system of government devised by the Constitution and the customs built around it have endured, always bringing the country back to commonly shared commitments.

The system could recognize regional and ideological differences, on the understanding that the nation was evolving and striving to accommodate those differences.  The three branches of the government might develop at different rates, but they remained in the roles assigned to them.

Recently, divisions, as deep as others in the past, seem to have become more permanent.  Recovery from traditional disputes now is less likely to happen.  The reasons are not that American politicians are more hostile than ever, but that the system itself has undergone two major structural changes that resist reversal.

Congress has become a parliament.  The president has unchecked power.

American political parties have not traditionally been monoliths.  Franklin D. Roosevelt led a divided Democratic Party that included southern racists and northern Blacks.  He might also get the support of defecting Republicans.  Part of his success resulted from his ability to produce congressional majorities out of this mix.

Then, the Democrats enjoyed a long-running House majority.  Republican Newt Gingrich concluded that for the GOP to forge its own majority, it should propose its own agenda and require total commitment to it by its House members.  Failure to remain in line could result in party leadership denying them desirable committee assignments.

After the 1994 elections, it worked.  Strict party discipline replaced the independence of Republican representatives.   The party came to resemble British or Canadian parliamentary parties more than the American political individualism.  Not only did GOP party discipline work, but it became ingrained in the party.

When the Republicans were able to work as a unit, the Democrats, a much less disciplined party, were forced to respond by following the path toward the parliamentary system.  Party lines hardened so that defections by even one or two members have become national news.  Passing bills became tougher.

The Supreme Court filled the congressional vacuum.  It endorsed the concept of a unitary presidency in which the chief executive would control all the levers of government.  The president might govern by executive order when Congress failed to legislate.  Almost no agencies would be independent of the president.

In practice, that meant the president could reinterpret or reject the customs and understandings that had grown up around the Constitution.  President Trump has carried that process to extremes, having been left unchecked by a well-disciplined and submissive Republican Congress that he could intimidate.  He has probably set precedents for his successors.

The country remains split by ideology and region.  Democracy in a vast and divided nation seems to come up short.  Vermont and Mississippi share few common concerns, but have deep political differences.  Some Republicans and Democrats question each others’ patriotism.  A presidential election once every four years fails to produce a truly national leader.

Is democracy in peril as Jefferson thought it could be?   Are issues so complex that the U.S. is simply too large for representative democracy?

The U.S. has adopted a quasi-parliamentary system, but has retained an increasingly powerful executive outside of Congress.  If this system persists, it might evolve further as needed to save popular government.  A first step should be the enlargement of the House, bringing representatives close to the people.

Many parliamentary governments rely on legislative coalitions or voting support from other parties.   Legislation then reflects compromises reached to form or maintain the coalition.  The executive faces an active rather than a passive legislature, which can better exercise checks on the executive than can one-party government.

Talk has begun about a multi-party American system based on ideology.  It might restore the art of compromise, now virtually dead in Washington.

A multi-party system will not emerge rapidly.  New parties must be prepared to mature slowly before having much power.  That will require committed leaders across the country and adequate finance.  Still, splitting up politics is better than splitting up the country.

The process depends on voters seeing the potential benefits of having more than a choice between two parties that time has passed.

Trump is a gambler, not a dealmaker

 

Trump is a gambler, not a dealmaker

Goes for ‘winner take all’

 

Gordon L. Weil

“The Art of the Deal,” the Trump bible, supposedly shows that the president is the unsurpassed master of negotiations.

In fact, it reveals that Trump is not a negotiator, but a gambler.  Trying to force Ukraine President Volodimir Zelenskyy to accept Russian territorial demands, he said that Putin “holds all the cards.”  In his war against Iran, he said the U.S. “holds all the cards.”  That’s the talk of the poker table, not dealmaking.

His book’s 11-point principles focus on how to behave more like a high-stakes gambler than a negotiator seeking to arrive at a deal.

Negotiating means working to reach a bargain between parties seeking to make a deal that is at least acceptable to each.   Both parties want to maximize their gains, but understand that cannot mean a “winner-take-all” outcome.

Trump’s priority is to defeat the other side.  His idea of a deal would yield control not compromise.

These days, Trump tries to combine the power of his personality with American military power, making every deal into his “winner-take-all.”  To achieve his goal, he has developed a distinctly personal negotiating style.

In typical negotiations, each side has an opening position, and they see if they can find a workable balance of interests.  Of course, one side may have greater power, but it’s hard to find a situation in which one side had “all the cards.”  If it did, there would be no need for negotiations.  But Trump doesn’t negotiate.  There are few talks; he issues ultimatums.

Without any attempt at negotiations, he raised tariffs on all other countries.  He expected them to ask him to lower increases in return for their reducing any trade deficit with the U.S.  Most did, even when the preexisting trade was fair.  The net result was an increase in prices almost worldwide.  Plus, considerable discomfort or even animosity among other countries.

In its trade war on the world, the U.S. caused nations to retreat, except China and Canada.  It has led other countries to take steps to reduce their trade with the U.S.  Canada’s Carney has pushed the idea of “middle powers” working together to increase their trade and shared development, and it’s working.

Trump applied much the same approach with Iran, though he has depended mainly on the threat of American force.   Having seen Venezuelan resistance fold, he thought the U.S. would have a similar effect on Iran.  He failed to understand the difference between the two countries.  Iran has resisted, exploiting its dominance of the Strait of Hormuz.

In its effort to force Iran to accept Trump’s demands, the U.S. has had to deplete its weaponry.  It has transferred naval vessels to the Middle East, leaving international Asian waterways open to China’s claims of sovereignty.   Despite major increases in military spending, it has accepted defensive help by Ukrainian drones, deployed in Arab countries.

Trump looks for public plaudits for his dealmaking. But his Israel-Gaza deal never got beyond Israel getting its hostages back.  His Board of Peace, designed to rebuild Gaza and replace the U.N., has almost disappeared.  He briefly got the spotlight, but his Gaza plans died, possibly from an overdose of ego.

His charm offensive with Kim Jung-un in North Korea, produced nothing, and the country has sent troops to aid the Russians, who now aid Kim.  Despite his self-promotion, the Nobel Peace Prize remains elusive.

Trump may be learning that winner-take-all only works in world affairs when one side is hugely more powerful than the other.  Recent events have shown there are now no great powers. 

The U.S. had to back down on Greenland and can’t prevail in Iran. 

Russia, supposedly the major threat to Western Europe, can’t take over Ukraine, which it thought would fall in days.   

China seemingly wants superpower benefits, mostly economic, without the responsibilities of leadership.

At home, Trump devotes little attention to much beyond retaliating against his critics. He doesn’t make deals.  He does not devise common plans with the GOP leaders of the House and Senate.  He seldom sits down with his own legislators, but often threatens them.  He never talks with the Democrats.

Conference committees formerly negotiated gaps between the two houses, but they have disappeared.   Trump obviously prefers congressional inaction that gives him the scope to act independently, but his executive orders frequently become tangled in court proceedings.  As grandstanding that may work, but there’s no sign of deals, much less artistry.

The great gambler is proving not to be great at government, a different game.  He has promised that his negotiating skills would bring quick results on Ukraine and inflation.  But the record-setting government shutdown and the prolonged Iran war lead his loyalists and others to understand that he can’t make deals or keep many of his high-priority promises.

Trump’s last chance; redistricting chaos; war powers

 

Trump’s last chance; redistricting chaos; war powers

Gordon L. Weil

Redistricting out of control

In the latest round in the race to redistrict congressional districts, the Virginia Supreme Court undercut Democratic hopes by overruling the results of a statewide referendum on redistricting.  A court has blocked a vote of the people. Unusual, but a sign of the unlimited power of the judiciary.

Another recent development is the prompt action to eliminate Democratic districts, notably those represented by African Americans, in the wake of last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that minorities would have to show clear intent to discriminate to block such moves.  It’s easy to disguise such bias in Republican states that are eliminating Democratic districts.

Chief Justice John Roberts protests that people should not see the Court as political.  Given that swift redistricting took place days after the last time the Court slashed the Voting Rights Act, the Chief asks too much.  Maybe he should worry that people will believe the Court is hopelessly out of touch or, worse, racist.

Some states used to elect members of Congress on a single statewide ballot, but Congress used its constitutional power to require the use of districts.  We are now getting the equivalent of single, statewide party rule when partisan gerrymandering takes place, which the Court approves.

Because Congress can require the use of the districts, it should also require they meet standards that prevent weirdly shaped districts created to serve partisan purposes.  For example, it could require counties to be kept intact as much as possible and that each district must be compact.

Trump’s last chance?

President Trump realizes that there’s a good chance the Republicans will lose control of the House and possibly of the Senate.  The Democrats could block many of his initiatives.  He would have to deal with them, a prospect he probably intensely dislikes.

As a result, he wants to accomplish as much of his agenda as possible this year, before a new Congress takes office.  His wish list could well include these items:

1. End hostilities with Iran, open the Strait of Hormuz and get oil and gas prices down fast. 

2. Get the next One Big Beautiful Budget passed with a huge increase in military spending.

3. Quit NATO in law as well as fact.

4. See Putin end Russia’s war with Ukraine, allowing Trump to claim the Nobel Peace Prize.

5. Force changes in the Cuban and Brazilian governments, thus confirming his Donroe Doctrine.

6. Trash the USMCA trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.

7. See a court convict just one of his political opponents.

Leaders double down

Trump faces falling poll ratings.  Putin worries about being toppled. Netanyahu must make it through upcoming elections.  All run risks caused by their military excesses.  The question is whether they will find ways to manage their problems by admitting their errors of judgment.

So far, they share a common characteristic.  When things start to go bad, you double down.  That does not reverse the earlier mistake; it makes matters worse.

Trump’s obstinacy on Iran has brought economic harm in the U.S. and across the world.  His inconsistent and idiosyncratic policies have cost the U.S. its world leadership.  His theme is America First, but he applies it in ways that don’t serve the long-term national interest.  He may not care for anything more than ego gratification (passport image, Kennedy Center).

Putin’s war has lasted longer than the Soviet Union’s participation in World War II.  Russians have noticed and even some of his loyal supporters have openly questioned his Ukraine invasion. He reportedly works out of a bunker.  But he won’t admit defeat.

Netanyahu may be popular in Israel, but not much elsewhere.  He is losing the backing of many Democrats, an unfortunate development when Israel has long relied on strong bipartisan American support.  When the dust settles, he may have escaped his personal legal trouble, which seems to matter a lot, but not the long-term cost to Israel, which seems not to matter enough.

The War Powers Act

The War Powers Act requires the president to notify congressional leaders within 48 hours of launching military operations.  Congress must authorize the operations within 60 days (30 additional are possible) or they must be halted.

Though he doubted the WPA’s constitutionality, President Trump provided timely notice after the Iran War began.   A tenuous ceasefire stopped most offensive action within 60 days, though large U.S. forces remain ready to act.  He claimed that no congressional action was required, because of the ceasefire.

The WPA says nothing about armed conflict continuing; it does not mention suspension of the 60 days once the period begins. It’s the starting date that matters, making Trump’s interpretation dubious.  But, so far, the WPA has seemed to work.

 

Sen. Collins meets the common man

Sen. Collins meets the common man

Big money, big attacks coming

 

Gordon L. Weil

Gov. Janet Mills left the Maine Democratic Senate primary race, and the pundits flooded the media with their opinions.

Her story fit their story: the Democratic Party is split between traditional moderates and leftwing progressives.   Her withdrawal showed the progressives are gaining.

The pundits may have been partly correct, but that’s not the whole story.  The split was more practical than ideological.  The dominant question was not about the direction of the Democratic Party, but who had the best chance of defeating Sen. Susan Collins.

The almost automatic response was that Mills, a proven statewide winner with high name recognition, was the ideal candidate to end Collins’ hold on the Senate seat.  Undoubtedly, that led Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, to endorse Mills, but it proved to be too simple a theory.

Sen. Susan Collins usually looks vulnerable to a Democratic challenger, but always wins.  This year, for the first time, with Mills out, she will face a candidate who has not previously held public office – an outsider.   Mills gave way to Graham Platner, an oyster farmer who never held a higher office than harbormaster.

Mills got into the race late.  Collins, who too often had supported President Trump, was losing her reputation as a rare GOP moderate.   Mills, as a two-time statewide winner, could have calculated that her right-of-center record and high voter recognition would give her an advantage.  Platner, already running, could be easily defeated.

She might have believed that she could readily assemble a coalition of coastal liberal voters and her more inland moderate constituents.  After all, that has worked in the Legislature while she’s been governor. 

But Mainers, like people elsewhere, are increasingly dissatisfied with the failure of government, federal or state, to improve their lives.  Collins could bring home Capitol largesse, but a new dock or dam doesn’t put food on the table or gas in the tank.

This sentiment suggests voter despair with both parties.  Voters say they want a candidate who expresses independence from the system.   Sen. Angus King may be an independent, but he comes across as a conventional Democrat. 

Platner appears as bold, basic and original.  His personal defects have emerged, notably a tattoo linked to Nazi symbols and his negative posts about women and even lobstermen.  He readily admits his errors, attributing them to a heedless youth.  Though virtually sure to win, he still faces a respectable, but unfunded, primary opponent.

Collins campaign allies are already attacking him for these faults, but the Democrats seem undeterred.  Since candidate Trump survived his Access Hollywood remarks about grabbing women, voters may have come to ignore the past failings of candidates whose politics they prefer.

The pundits focus on Maine as a purple state – one that could swing between the red GOP and the blue Dems.  One of its two congressional districts has voted for Trump each election.  That might raise doubts about Platner, backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, when facing a statewide electorate.

Trump’s popularity has reflected discontent with government among many Second District rural voters, but he may have lost some appeal.  He backs a candidate in the GOP governor’s primary and has attracted massive financing for him, which pays for a big media buy.  But, at this stage, he is still trailing a more traditional conservative.

Many Democrats saw Mills as too right-of-center.  She opposed the creation of a system of public defenders, though Maine was the last state without one.  She later gave some ground.  Just before her departure, she vetoed a Democratic move to suspend approval of any data centers in the state, which would have set Maine apart.

At 78, Mills’ age counted against her.  She would have been the oldest first-year senator ever.  King, the other Maine senator, is 82.  Maine has the oldest median age, and many seniors are aware of the limits imposed by age when working the long hours required by public life.

Collins, 73, faces age and possibly a health issue, a “benign essential tremor.”  No Mainer has ever served six terms in the U.S. Senate, as she would.  Platner, 41, is slightly younger than the state’s median age of 45.  He will face relentless attacks focusing on his past.  Collins may have some deniability, if her campaign does not directly sponsor the ads.

Her split-the-difference form of moderation will be weakened by her having backed Trump’s cabinet nominations and key policies.  She rarely differs with the president when it counts.

The Maine GOP is divided between moderates and conservatives.   Collins may have miscalculated that she can still hold onto both Rockefeller Republicans and MAGA Trumpers.   She clings to her Senate seat, unlike Olympia Snowe, a GOP moderate who retired gracefully.  Platner may be strong competition in a down year.

Let the campaign cash flow.

 

 

  

Supreme Court defies Congress

 

Supreme Court defies Congress

Judicial scope needs limits

 

Gordon L. Weil

The real American Revolution was the Constitution, not the War for Independence.

The republican form of government was revolutionary.  Though the U.S. wasn’t history’s first democracy, there was nothing else like it.  Not wanting an all-powerful monarch, the Framers divided the government into three balanced branches, each with checks on the others.  It was a clean break with the British system.

All right, you already knew that.  The news is that it’s not working.

In Britain, Parliament has complete authority to say what the law is.  It can enact laws that are considered to make up the British constitution.  It’s often said that the U.K. does not have a written constitution.  That’s not correct; the constitution is made up of specific laws that govern the country.  For example, the U.K. has a Bill of Rights.

The courts there can interpret and apply the laws and set precedents, but they cannot declare unconstitutional a law passed by Parliament.  Courts accept laws as being constitutional; they may be changed by an Act of Parliament.

The American Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to declare unconstitutional laws passed by Congress.  In 1803, the Court itself ruled that it had such power and its ruling has always been accepted.  However, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to pass a law amending or even eliminating that power.

If the Supreme Court finds a law unconstitutional, it effectively repeals the law.  This is an obvious departure from the British system, and gives the Court the last word in government.  While the Court supposedly judges laws based on constitutional or legal principles, it may make political judgments, dress them up as legal, and overrule the president and Congress.

That just happened.  The Court nullified one of the historically most important federal laws, relying on the political judgment of a majority composed of six justices.

In 1965, bipartisan congressional majorities overwhelmingly passed the Voting Rights Act.   While the Fifteenth Amendment had given African Americans, most formerly slaves, the right to vote, many state laws continue to make their voting impossible.   A century after the end of the Civil War, the VRA gave the federal government the tools to make that right real.

The Supreme Court ruled that the VRA was a lawful way to apply the Fifteenth Amendment, assuring access by Black to voting.  The VRA has been amended five times, most recently in 2006, to expand its coverage and effectiveness.

But, in two rulings a majority of the Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has stripped the VRA of virtually all its powers.  The Court’s reasoning has been that the law discriminates in favor of racial minorities, which is not allowed by the Constitution, and must be ended when, in its judgment, special treatment is no longer needed.

In its first ruling, issued in 2013, the Court ended federal government supervision of elections where racial bias existed, because it found that such prejudice had been largely eliminated.  This action was like deciding the police were no longer needed, because they had suppressed crime.  It patted itself on the back for ending discrimination.

Just seven years after Congress extended federal supervision, the Court had repealed it.  The ink was barely dry on the ruling, when some states began removing Blacks from voting access.  The Court could readily see its judgment was wrong.  It didn’t.

Where the effect of state laws caused discrimination against Black voters, the VRA said they should be overturned.  But last week, the Court majority decided that the state laws must openly intend to discriminate.   It had ruled that gerrymandering districts for political purposes was constitutional, so state legislators have only to avoid mentioning race.

Louisiana, the state involved in the case, moved promptly to eliminate at least one congressional district represented by an African American.   The likely result is there will be fewer minority members of Congress.  The Court selectively ignored the obvious in favor of its opinion of how well the VRA had worked.

The judgment on whether the VRA was still needed is clearly political, based on nothing more than the opinions and ideology of six unelected people who are empowered to overrule legislation voted and signed six times by presidents of both parties.  This is too much judicial power.

The Court’s powers should be brought back into line with a balanced government.

The Court could be enlarged to assure a wider range of views.  As I have previously noted, the Republicans have “packed” the Court, so the Democrats could “unpack” it.   A mechanism exists for creating temporary slots on the Court, allowing more justices to be added.

Or Congress could decide to create a hybrid between today’s Court control and the British system, leaving the ultimate decision on constitutionality to be made by an elected Congress.

Shooting attempt creates new, but futile, gun control demands

 

Shooting attempt creates new, but futile, gun control demands

Should focus on uses, not ownership

 

Gordon L. Weil

Each time the U.S. undergoes a mass shooting or an attack on an elected official, calls are immediately raised for additional gun control.  Usually, those calls go unanswered.

The frequent reply is that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”  States may pass so-called red or yellow flag laws, allowing for temporarily taking firearms away from individuals with possible mental health problems.  Their effect is limited.

At the same time, gun sales may increase as the industry reacts by raising fears of possible government restrictions on gun ownership, though the manufacturers and the NRA succeed in blocking any such proposals.

It’s true that, by themselves, guns don’t kill people.  Does their ready availability make them the obvious tool of choice for people in responding to politics, personal disputes, or despair?   Is gun use a routine part of the national culture?

Most attacks on political figures are by zealots, driven so deeply into opposition that they seek to make a public statement or eliminate the person they hold responsible.  The shooter at last week’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner had an avowed grievance with President Trump and his administration.

Political shootings are a long-standing America tradition (three presidential assassinations between 1865 and 1901 plus two more attempts by 1933).  They continue, reflecting the deep divide in the country’s political life.  No longer does one party respect the patriotism of the other party, while opposing its policies.  The opposition has become a disloyal enemy. 

Trump has said he “hates” the Democrats, which he has labeled as “the enemy within.”  In full fury, he has called the Democratic Party as “the Party of Hate, Evil and Satan.”  That’s the language of war, not the language of open political communication.  It may last so long as MAGA Republicanism dominates politics, and Democrats respond to it.

While armed attacks on public officials of both parties and mass shootings, often at schools, raise legitimate outrage at gun violence, they miss a central fact about guns.  More than 60 percent of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides.  Their deaths are as much a sign of a troubled health care system with its questionable focus on mental problems as of a failure to control guns.

Guns are widely available and easy to use, making them a ready method to express anger or eliminate personal woes.  The U.S. leads the world with 121 firearms per 100 inhabitants.  Canada comes in second with 35 per 100.  In last place among leading nations is Japan with less than one gun per 100 people.

How does that translate into firearms deaths? The U.S. is second to gang-ridden Brazil and has 11 deaths per 100,000 population.  Canada has two and Japan has less then one per 100,000.

The differing death rates may reflect gun control.  Rules are extremely tough in Japan.  Canada licenses owners and requires registration, but little is done in the U.S. and Brazil.  While most countries have “stand your ground” laws, many impose a burden of proof on shooters and the need for proportionality, unlike many American states.

American history may help explain the clear difference between the U.S. and other countries.  The nation once depended heavily on state militias, military units composed of average people trained and on-call in an emergency.  Citizens kept their rifles at home, ready for a militia call-out.

Unlike older nations, the U.S. had a huge frontier.  With little government, if any, the pioneers were responsible for enforcing laws and local practices in the West.  The frontier disappeared but not the frontier mentality.  People have stuck with their sense of independence, especially as the government became more entwined with their lives. 

Many people strongly adhere to a tradition embodied in the Second Amendment, adopted in 1791.  Powerful and well-funded political forces protect a narrow interpretation of that amendment against gun reform.

Limiting the use of firearms has become a partisan issue.  The Republicans adopt wedge issues on which voters focus and vote, while ignoring the rest of the GOP agenda.  Gun control, drawing on national tradition, works well as a wedge issue.  

Shootings are likely to continue, and gun control laws could pass only after greater, sustained, and widespread outrage.  The government won’t be authorized to seize personal firearms, and widespread gun ownership makes some effective control almost impossible.

Future policy will continue to grapple unsatisfactorily with firearms.   Unnecessary deaths will continue.  The focus needs to be more on gun use than on limiting gun ownership.

Militias are gone, so a major justification for keeping guns at home could be replaced by financial incentives providing for safe, offsite storage at ranges and shooting galleries.

Mandatory registration does not mean confiscation, as Canada shows, and despite gun industry claims. It makes sense for law enforcement.  Plus, politicians should disarm their irresponsibly heated rhetoric.