Platner’s war: Ending Maine’s gerontocracy

Gordon L. Weil

Graham Platner easily won the Maine Democratic Senate primary to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins.

Platner overcame sharp criticism of some of his past personal behavior, already being made an issue by GOP PACs. 

From a Maine perspective, the national media missed what is taking place, preferring its cosmic level analysis.  Platner’s victory was not mostly the defeat of a Democratic moderate by a progressive.  It was about who could capture the seat from an aging, formerly moderate Republican, who too often supported Trump.

Age is the driving issue in Maine’s campaigns.  Platner defeated Gov. Janet Mills, 78, because she would have been the oldest first-year senator ever.  Maine Sen. Angus King is even older.  Plus, Mills is not the usual moderate; she leans to the right.  Though she vigorously challenged Trump, she is more conservative than her own party in the Legislature.

Collins, 73, suffers from visible hand and head tremors.  Pledged to serve two terms, she now seeks her sixth.  Over her career, she has ossified, going from a popular Mainer to a Washington pro, putting power over principle.  Her status as moderate has faded, partly because she backed the nominations of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Health Sec. Bobby Kennedy, Jr.

Whatever voters’ opinions about the flawed Platner, the calendar doesn’t lie; at 41, he’s a lot younger and more attuned to today’s average Mainers.  And he tells them what they want to hear about the need for change, as the state gradually moves from being bipartisan purple to outright Democratic blue.

The Collins-Platner campaign is likely to follow predictable lines unless one or both falters badly.

Collins will run on the pork-barrel money she has brought back to Maine for local projects.  As chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, she has conceded real spending power to the White House, but she can claim to be the Queen of Earmarks.  Every senator gets their share, but she can “bring home the bacon.” 

As the Republican senator who splits most often with Trump, Collins will try to keep her moderate image alive.  Her balancing act has worked, because her disagreements with the White House rarely make a difference in the final Senate vote.  She characteristically explains away and excuses some of her party-line votes, perhaps because they assure her committee leadership.

Her backers will hammer Platner’s personal defects.  They want women voters to reject him for his sexual gambits and back the female candidate.  Their attacks will be constant, and the GOP will spend heavily to hold onto its last remaining congressional seat in New England.  Still, given how little Trump’s crotch grabbling revelation mattered, these attacks might fizzle.

Platner will run like a progressive.  His major out-of-state support comes from Sen. Bernie Sanders and company, not from Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer.  This will be a hugely costly campaign, so Democratic money matters, and he knows it.  In-state, he will garner the support of respected Democratic leaders.

To some degree, Platner’s chances will depend on voters in Maine’s Second Congressional District, which has supported Trump while narrowly electing Democratic Rep. Jared Golden, who is retiring.  It’s the north-eastern district.  Platner will easily carry the southern, blue First District.

The Democratic governor’s primary is relevant.  It ended with one candidate slightly ahead of three others who are closely grouped.  The winner will be selected by ranked choice voting, and it’s likely the front-runner won’t prevail. The next three ran as a ticket designed to deny him second or third choice votes.  All four are decades younger than Mills.

Anything can happen when the votes are tabulated next week.  Troy Jackson, a former state Senate President, was one of the three and ran well in his northern Maine home territory.  If he’s on the general election ballot with Platner, Jackson could provide valuable help.

Also on the joint ticket was Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, considered by some to be everybody’s second choice.  Candidate Angus King III, running fifth, will be eliminated, and if Bellows picks up enough support from his voters, she could have a chance of moving up to the top.

Maine House Speaker Hannah Pingree, another member of the trio, ran a strong campaign, backed by Mills.  Like Bellows, she would add a woman to the Democratic ballot, which could help calm Platner concerns. 

Hannah’s mother, Rep. Chellie Pingree, the First District U.S. House member, will be easily reelected.  RCV will produce a more liberal Democrat than Golden to run against the aging former Gov. Paul LePage, 77, a Trumper.

There will be more election excitement and spending than usual in Maine. The sharpest irony is that Trump, 80 on Sunday, must back Collins, whom he intensely dislikes but whose Senate vote he desperately needs.  His support could hurt her as much as it helps. 

Congress caves on Iran

 Congress caves on Iran

Gordon L. Weil

Maine Sen. Susan Collins demonstrated last week how she maintains her reputation as a Republican moderate.  Her statements are evidence of the decline of Congress.

As President Trump geared up for the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, Collins cautioned that war should only be a “last resort.”  This remark was constructive, because Iran’s representatives still held out the hope of a negotiated settlement on their nuclear development.  But, like the rest of Congress and America’s allies, Collins did not know that Trump had already decided on war. 

War came, and questions were promptly raised about the absence of congressional authorization.  The War Powers Resolution, intended to limit a president’s ability to take the U.S. to war, might be used to put on the brakes.  Under that Resolution, the president is required to brief Congress within 48 hours and needs congressional authorization to continue the war beyond 60 days.

Collins opposed mandating an earlier end of the Iran war.  Her stated rationale was that Trump had provided the required briefing and therefore could legally proceed.  Collins and all Republican senators but one refused to deauthorize the action.

The impression left by Collins was that Trump had acted legally, so no further action was needed.  What happened to her “last resort?”   The GOP attitude ignored the purpose of the 48-hour notice.  Congress does not have to wait 60 days to halt the war.  By their action, the GOP senators and later the House approved the war.

Their action recalled the congressional vote supporting President G.W. Bush’s Iraq War. Members don’t want to look weak after the president has proclaimed that he acted to protect Americans.  In the Iraq case, the supposed threat from “weapons of mass destruction” did not exist.  In the Iran case, Trump has offered nothing more about a threat than his opinion.

After Iraq, some senators and representatives regretted having gone along with the vote.  Similarly, after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, members expressed regret about having authorized the Vietnam War, relying on false reports about an alleged attack on a U.S. submarine.

The past votes were not as openly partisan as was the Iran vote, which took on the character of an expression of GOP support for the MAGA president.  It did not appear to be an individually considered decision about sending U.S. armed forces into combat with the attendant loss of life by citizens of the U.S. and other nations.

It’s now argued that the world has changed since the Constitution was written, and Congress would move too slowly to declare war in modern times.  It is sensible to leave the decision on war to the president, some analysts say, because presidents control foreign affairs and serve as commander-in-chief.

The prime power left to Congress is to enact legislation to block funding for a war, though it would have to withstand a presidential veto.  That would make it almost certain to fail.

As with the earlier authorizations, senators and representatives may yet have to justify their votes.  They may apologize, as have some of their predecessors.  But, when the vote was taken, there seemed to be no thought of their personal accountability to the voters.

Congress cannot “make” war.  A legislative body cannot control military action, beyond authorizing it or not.  But making war is distinct from “declaring” war, which is an essential function of an elected legislature. 

The issue is particularly complicated because the Constitution makes the president, the chief civil official, also the chief military officer.   What worked for George Washington did not work for many of his successors. 

Congress must make the policy decision committing the country on a course that will cost the lives of Americans and others.  While generals must inevitably issue orders resulting in the death of some of their troops, their actions must be authorized by agencies responsible to the people in whose name they act.

In the U.S., the responsible agency is Congress and not the lone chief executive.  The president may order actions costing lives, but they should have congressional authorization.  The power over life and death is too great an authority to accord to a single person, one who may never again face voter scrutiny.

The current War Powers Resolution does not work well.  The Resolution applies after the fact, which is too late.  Going through the motions of following it allowed Sen. Collins to abandon her moderate “last resort” statement for GOP partisanship.

If Congress values its authority and believes the constitutional war power needs updating, it should adopt a Resolution that its funding approval for any future war requires it receiving advance notice, except in case of a direct attack on the U.S. 

Without some role for Congress, the president’s surprise attack on an adversary is also a surprise attack on his own country.