Impeachment history reveals risk for both Trump and Dems

Gordon L. Weil

Impeachment is in the air. 

The Mueller report made no criminal charges against President Trump, but questioned some of his attempts to obstruct the inquiry.  Some in Congress believe he should be impeached for those actions.

Impeachment is almost always political, and it could well be in this case.  Only Democrats are considering impeachment.  They understand that impeachment would be a political act.

It can be voted by a majority of the House of Representatives, where Democrats now enjoy control.  After impeachment, the Senate can convict by a two-thirds vote.  That would require some GOP senators to vote to convict.  That's quite unlikely, making the House vote little more than a gesture.

For House Democrats, impeaching Trump might only be worth doing if it helped them in the 2020 elections.  If not, it could place a burden on Democratic candidates.  Obviously, nobody knows the answer.

In fairness, some Democrats believe that Trump's actions to try to kill the Mueller investigation did truly transgress the limits on presidential powers.  They may believe that the issue needs to be tested for the sake of history, not only current politics.

That possibility could have influenced Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General William Barr went along.  All three are Republicans.  Rather than charging Trump with criminal acts, they may have chosen to leave only the impeachment option.

The Constitution contains the power of impeachment to help ensure that limits could be placed on federal officials, not only presidents, who engage in criminal activity or exceed their powers.  The House, as prosecutor, and the Senate, as court, decide.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the judiciary is not involved.

The penalty for impeachment may be political embarrassment; the penalty for conviction is expulsion.  Neither is the same as a court judgment of criminal guilt.

Several impeachment proceedings have resulted in conviction and expulsion, usually when connected to a criminal act.  But in the most important cases, no conviction was obtained.

In 1805, the House, controlled by Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, impeached Samuel Chase, a Federalist-appointed Supreme Court justice, who had been openly hostile to Jefferson.  Some of Jefferson's supporters voted against impeachment as did some in the Senate, which did not convict.

The Jeffersonians were politically motivated in taking action against Chase.  But some of them put the independence of the judiciary above partisanship.  Federalist judicial appointees would survive, even as presidential politics changed.

The first attempt to remove a president came when Republicans tried to oust Andrew Johnson, a Democratic senator who had been Lincoln's second-term vice president.  Republicans wanted to transform southern society, not merely suppress secession.  Johnson wanted to go easy on the South, allowing it to pursue racist policies. 

By a straight partisan vote, with southern Democrats not yet back in Congress, Johnson was impeached.  The Senate missed conviction by one vote, after seven Republicans voted to acquit.  Contrary to myth, none paid a political price for his vote. 

Maine's William Pitt Fessenden, a Bowdoin graduate, cast the first Republican vote against conviction.  He disliked Johnson's policy, but rejected using conviction for partisan political purposes.  In the end, Johnson prevailed, when a fully restored Congress backed his policy.

In 1974, a bipartisan House committee vote recommended impeachment of President Richard Nixon for covering up his campaign's break-in at the Democratic National Committee offices.  His actions may have been criminal.   

When Nixon learned that many Senate Republicans would vote to convict him, he resigned.  The elections that year yielded a crushing Democratic majority.

In 1999, the House impeached President Bill Clinton by bipartisan vote for lying to investigators about his personal, non-political transgressions.  The Senate refused to convict.  

Several Republicans, including Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, opposed conviction.  A Republican won the presidency in 2000, but the party lost seats in Congress.

History shows heavy, if not absolute, partisanship in the impeachment process.  Only in Nixon's case was impeachment connected to probable criminal action as president.  Only in his case did it, or the threat of it, work.

Because impeachment is a political act, the Democrats must make a political judgment.  Will they help or hurt themselves politically by impeaching Trump without winning conviction and possibly without a single Republican vote?  History goes both ways.

Besides, impeachment might not prevent a Trump comeback.  Federal judge Alcee Hastings, impeached and convicted, is now Florida's longest serving member of Congress.  Andrew Johnson returned to the Senate and was sworn into office by the vice president who, as a senator, had voted to convict him.

Assange, Wikileaks endanger independent press

Gordon L.  Weil

Julian Assange creates problems. 

The Wikileaks founder does it not only by releasing stolen documents, but also by his own release from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Assange enjoyed Ecuador's diplomatic protection, because he feared the British would send him to the U.S. to be tried for releasing secret documents.  The former Ecuadorian president shared his dislike of the U.S.  His successor differed and had Assange expelled.

Bradley (later, Chelsea) Manning was an American soldier who stole documents and passed them to Wikileaks, an online news group aimed at embarrassing governments by exposing their secret communications.  The theft was illegal and Manning, subject to military law, was imprisoned.

But the revelation itself of government secrets is a function of the free press, guaranteed by the Constitution.  Was Assange's action protected by freedom of the press?  Could he be arrested for receiving documents he knew were stolen?

A free press can keep an independent watch on government.  It represents the public, which cannot exercise control of supposedly democratic institutions if it lacks information on what its leaders are doing.

In a mass democracy, government often sees itself as separate from citizens, not subject to them.  A free press tries to help the public control their government, especially if that means revealing matters officials would prefer to keep secret.

Of course, there must be limits on what should be published. For example, the media should not directly cause the death of people or reveal actions under way that directly affect national security.

Assange's supporters see him as a member of the free press.  To hold government accountable, they find it acceptable to publish stolen documents.  Otherwise, government could shield itself behind a claim of secrecy.

The father of the concept that people have the right to break the law for a higher purpose was Henry David Thoreau, a Massachusetts man who inspired Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.  He accepted that, if caught in a violation of law, a person might have to pay the penalty, even going to jail. 

The federal government has not charged Assange with a crime for publishing secrets.  Instead, he is charged with assisting Manning in breaking the law by stealing documents.  His supporters believe that even that action is protected by freedom of the press.  Assange believes he cannot get a fair trial in the U.S.

The legal war in London about turning Assange over to American justice may continue for years.  If he faces a court in the U.S., the system will be tested to see that he gets a fair trial.

But there's more.  Assange strongly dislikes the U.S. and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate. As an independent journalist, he is certainly entitled to criticize and embarrass both.

American intelligence agencies and the media have found that Russia tried illegally to influence the presidential election, favoring Donald Trump and opposing Clinton.  The Russians hacked the computers of the Democratic National Committee and obtained information that could harm the Clinton effort.

The Russians, well aware of Assange's opinions, turned the information over to Wikileaks.  That organization knew that it was relying on a source trying to undermine the American system of government, but published the hacked emails.

Assange and Wikileaks allowed their status as independent news providers to be exploited by knowingly helping the Russians' anti-American moves.  At that point, they shed their independence and became weapons in a war by one government against another.  In doing so, they may have lost their right to be considered journalists.

It remains unclear if Assange will ever be held accountable for assisting the Russian scheme.  If his actions are rated as just plain old journalism, public confidence in the media, already battered, will suffer even more.  Loss of independent scrutiny of government is a serious danger to the American system of government.

Faced with groups like Wikileaks, the government and others, like the Democrats, must also show greater discipline. Electronic communication is not absolutely secure and may never be.  People must recognize that any electronic message may find its way to the public.

Of course, there will be real secrets that need to be better protected.  How?

Commit less to writing.  Use more voice communication and faxes, which are far more secure than the Internet.  Avoid unimportant electronic communication, because what may seem trivial could turn out to be sensitive or open to distortion.

Above all, Americans should insist that their leaders disclose more and not hide behind the walls of secrecy they build.  But they will always need a free and independent press.

Trump seeks to end independent Fed

Gordon L. Weil

Remember the Great Recession of 2008? 

Thanks to prosperity since then, memory may have faded.  The steady growth in the American economy is largely the result of two-fisted government action by the president and the Federal Reserve.  They each used different tools.

Increased spending on public projects can help turn the economy around.  It pumps money into directly creating jobs, which produce even more jobs as the new income ripples through the country.

Soon after taking office, President Obama succeeded in getting Congress to adopt an economic stimulus that reached $831 billion.  Tax cuts were a big part of the package, along with building roads and other public facilities.  Some went to social benefit programs.  New federal debt paid the bill.

A GOP Congress denied Obama any more stimulus spending, but later it was willing to add to the public debt by adopting more tax cuts.  President Trump signed off on them, and the recovery continued.

The stimulus alone would not have brought the strong recovery.  Much of the sustained work was handled by the Federal Reserve.  On its own, it lowered interest rates, making borrowing easier for new homes and business expansion.

The Fed also stepped up lending to banks, so they could more easily offer mortgages and money for economic development.  By lowering interest rates and making more debt available, it used its powers to aid the economy.

Created in 1913, the Fed has mandates to fight inflation, when prices and interest rates rise too quickly, and to promote job creation.  Its moves affect all other banks and it serves as the federal government's bank, making it the central bank.  Other countries also have central banks.

The U.S. central bank is meant to operate outside of political control.  Its board members are appointed for 14 year terms.  The long terms are intended to insulate the Board, which receives no taxpayer funding, keeping it independent of the politics of the day.

The president and Congress may want the Fed to promote easy money, allowing them to take credit when running for reelection.  They are likely to be less concerned about long-term effects, whatever the Fed's responsibility.

When he was running for reelection in 1972, President Nixon induced the Fed chair to lower interest rates.  That produced a short-term push to the economy but led to huge inflation that hit under President Carter.

Now having slashed interest rates and bought enormous amounts of debt to beat the Great Recession, the Fed has few tools left to combat another downturn.  You cannot cut rates to stimulate the economy when they are already low. 

So the Fed has begun trying to rearm itself by gradually raising rates and reducing the amount of bank debt it holds.  By returning to normal levels, it will later be able to make cuts to help recovery in case of another downturn.  It has been going slowly, because there is little inflation.

Trump has promised great economic growth.  While he can take some of the credit for the sustained recovery, he wants levels of growth that would be unusually high.  This year, he is not achieving his goals, which probably would have eluded any president or policy.

He blames the failure to reach high growth rates on the Fed, including Jerome Powell, his own appointee as chair.  Trump believes that raising rates, even slowly and slightly, hampers the achievement of his forecast growth.  It's obvious he dislikes the Fed's independent monetary policy.

He scorns Powell, admitting he is "stuck" with the Fed chief, but keeps up his pressure.  Powell resists resigning.  But he has led the Fed to back off plans for more small rate boosts.

Trump has picked candidates for two open slots on the Board.  Stephen Moore is a political commentator with no academic or business background to help him with the complexities of monetary policy.  Herman Cain is a businessman who shows no understanding of the Fed.  Both have made misstatements about the Fed.

Trump's economics are misguided, designed only to win him an election, and his appointees, both Trump loyalists, would vote to decrease rates.  Nobody would worry about post-election inflation. 

The Fed committee that makes policy has 12 members.  So these appointees could not themselves change interest rates.  But they could politicize the Fed.

Congress created the Fed as an independent body.  It was meant to keep the economy on a steady course, not subject to political swings.

Will the Republican Senate refuse to confirm political appointees or appease Trump in hopes he will lead the GOP to electoral victory?

GOP deploys political "bluff" on Green New Deal

Gordon L. Weil

The country has been treated to a classic case of political theater, and few even knew about it.

People missed the cynical drama staged by Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mainly because much of the media spread what amounted to "fake" news.

The story began in January when some newly elected House Democrats launched a proposal dubbed "the Green New Deal."  The "New Deal" was meant to echo the broad social legislation enacted to combat the Great Depression in the 1930s.  The new version would bring sweeping economic and environmental action.

The proposals were ambitious and idealistic, reflecting deep concern about the deterioration of the environment and the income gap.  Opponents immediately ridiculed them, claiming they would outlaw everything from airplanes to cows' farts.

While it was obvious the proposals were a set of lofty objectives, backed by Senate Democrats running for president, they lacked detail.  They proposed no funding and aimed for success in ten years, which was clearly impossible.  Critics would claim they were impractical or would harm the economy.

No member of Congress expected that the Green New Deal could be adopted before the 2020 elections.  Some Democrats hoped to see if it could get the party on record in support of its goals.  Many others were wary of endorsing extreme and controversial proposals. 

Republicans relished the prospect of a split among Democrats and the possibility of being able to box the Democrats into a politically vulnerable endorsement of the proposal.  To them, the Green New Deal was not a challenge, but an opportunity.

McConnell himself proposed the Green New Deal bill in the Senate.  Republicans staged a symbolic floor debate to exaggerate and lampoon it.  The GOP leader had made sure that there would be no committee hearings on the bill and no possibility for other senators to amend it.

He then scheduled his bill for what has been called a "bluff vote."  Though the Republicans had proposed the bill, they really opposed it and would seek to kill it.  That was their bluff.  They apparently hoped that some Democrats, to please the party's most liberal wing, would err and vote for the proposal, causing an internal party split.

A couple of weeks ago, the bill was brought before the Senate.  Under today's practices, the Senate would first have to vote to end debate before the bill itself would be considered.  If the GOP blocked ending debate, the bill would theoretically remain alive.  In fact, it would be buried. 

The GOP could use this stealthy move to vote against their own bill without going on record in opposition to its lofty goals. 

The Democrats countered by deciding simply to vote "present" when their names were called.  In that way, they could avoid falling for the bluff.  With no favorable votes and not enough votes to end debate, the bill would effectively be permanently shelved.

Everybody knew the script.  The vote on cutting off debate followed predictable lines.  All Republicans voted against ending debate and Democrats, except for four, voted "present."

Three of the four were Democrats elected in normally Republican states.  Their votes, throw-aways because they did not affect the outcome, might help them burnish their credentials with GOP voters back home.

The fourth senator was Maine's Angus King.  He is an independent member of the Senate but is aligned with the Democrats.  He objected to the Green New Deal as being impractical, as did the Republicans and some Democrats, but he also objected to McConnell's bluff strategy.  Still, as an independent, he could vote this time with the GOP.

Then, the media coverage hid the whole unseemly ploy.  Virtually all news reports said the Senate had voted down the Green New Deal.  It surely would have done so if there had been a real vote, but the media downplayed or ignored that, above all, this was a "bluff vote" designed to split the Democrats.

No news reports noted the lack of the normal legislative consideration that would happen if the bill was taken seriously.  The media allowed the GOP to get away with its bit of theater.  It made no effort to explain what was in the bill or the reasoning behind it. 

In school, students may be taught how laws are made in the federal government.  The formal system described in the schoolroom is gone, replaced by the kind of tactics used on the Green New Deal.  Can you find that fact in the evening news?

When government doesn't work, people may be angry.  But they often don't know why.

Mueller findings, voter worries could produce Trump win

Gordon L. Weil

Whatever the polls say, Donald Trump could be re-elected. 

Both he and the Democrats have focused great attention on the Mueller report.  By finding that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russian meddlers, it may end up absolving Trump of many other charges or complaints.  Some voters are sure to see it that way.

His chances for victory may rate better than his personal popularity, because he appeals to millions of Americans who worry about their meager savings and dislike changes taking place in the country.  Despite low unemployment, these people have not shared in the nation's prosperity.

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reached sobering conclusions, finding "the U.S. has the highest level of economic inequality among developed countries.  It has the world's greatest per capita health expenditures yet the lowest life expectancy among comparable countries."

Even worse, the gap between average people and the most wealthy is huge.  Stiglitz notes that three Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent.  To be clear, that's three people, not three percent.  And the percentage of children earning more than their parents, a sign of economic progress, is tumbling.

American productivity is climbing.  But the benefits do not show up in the wages of production and nonsupervisory workers.  Investors and owners are picking up the gains.

Under the Republican tax cut, the breaks have mostly gone to the wealthy.  Middle-income taxpayers saw their withholding tax lowered before the 2018 elections, but their expected tax refunds shrink after those elections.

Still, some voters do not hold Trump responsible.  They believe their taxes can be reduced by cutting government spending.  Reduced regulation, which Trump is providing, costs less.  A tough trade policy slows imports, creating more jobs at home, though it may also cut exports.

The dominant political mantra remains "jobs, jobs, jobs."  It seems to matter little if the price of today's low unemployment is less environmental protection and lower quality health care. 

Trump promises recovery of the declining manufacturing economy.  He appeals to people who regret the growing influence of women and minorities.  He wants to build trade and immigration walls to protect the country.  "America First" means an increasingly isolated country, seeking to regain its past.

Even though demographic change is inevitable, some see it as having been sped up by allowing an "invasion" of immigrants, legal and illegal.  Trump's Wall is a powerful symbol of resistance to change.  The key word in "Make America Great Again" has been "Again."  Some people like what that implies.

Whether Trump utters untruths almost daily or focuses excessively on himself or treats others with disrespect matters far less to some voters than his policies of lower taxes, fewer imports, reduced immigration and less regulation.  His policies may be enough to get him re-elected, even by voters who don't like him.

Many Democrats believe that his faults, now widely recognized, will be enough to bring his defeat.  His popularity remains relatively low.  In short, they think Trump will defeat himself.  That's why there are so many candidates.  Win the primaries, they think, and you win the presidency.

Their view gets some support from the 2018 congressional elections.  Republicans lost control of the House and gained less than expected in the Senate, because of voters' negative view of Trump.  Will the Mueller report change opinions about him?

Some Democratic candidates believe voters are ready for a sharp, almost revolutionary, reversal.  They argue for an increased role for government to deal with climate change, public health care and education.  The necessary funds would come from an increase in taxes on the most wealthy.

These Democrats see the reaction to Trump giving them the opportunity to focus on increased government action, not leaving the country entirely to the private sector and competition.  They may remind voters of the sad story of leaving regulation of the crash-prone 737 Max 8 to Boeing, its manufacturer. 

The Democrats divide between moderates and self-styled democratic socialists.  They split between middle-of-the-road policies and an extreme shift away from Trump.  Will the Democrats remain divided, benefiting Trump, or will the primaries yield a unifying view of how much change their voters want?

Meanwhile, Trump and his loyal Republicans seem ready to stick with catering to public longing for the disappearing past.  The worries of middle class families could work to Trump's political advantage.

The 2020 election is as likely to be about the temper of the American people as about Trump's character.  It will really be about us and what we want. 

U.S. votes, Brexit reveal problems from overuse of referendums

Gordon L. Weil

The 2016 presidential vote and Brexit have something in common. In both cases, many voters found the result was much different than their expectations.

In recent months, the British Parliament has been grappling with putting into effect the closely decided referendum vote to leave the European Union. It proved easier to say "Leave" than finding a way to do it.

The main problem is Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. Leaving the E.U. means either it will have a new border with the country of Ireland or one with the rest of the U.K. It has neither now. Nobody has come up with a solution to avoid one or the other.

This issue has disastrously complicated the "Leave" decision. Faced with uncertainty, major parts of the U.K. economy are departing for the E.U. They cannot accept the situation and assume the worst. Confusion reigns.

Resolving the issues created by the "Leave" vote has been left to Parliament, which cannot agree on any course of action except delay. The result is political chaos.

The Brexit crisis is the result of using a popular referendum in a country having little experience with direct democracy – decision-making by the people rather than by their legislative representatives. Perhaps the most national voting experience many people had was the Eurovision Song Contest.

In the U.S., Donald Trump's election was the American version of a national referendum, and he got four years at the helm. Not only did he win the presidency without a majority of the popular vote, but he has stirred deep concerns about his leadership on matters ranging from race to trade.

The safety valve on this national vote has always been the election of the House of Representatives. The people get to express their political opinion midway through a presidential term. If they dislike the results of the presidential election, they may elect an opposition House.

That's why the entire House is elected every two years while senators, members of a body designed to slow change, are elected for six-year terms. The House can become the short-term monitor of the president. The Democrats, newly in control, are trying to slow Trump down.

There are two solutions for dealing with the complicated consequences of a referendum.

One is used in Switzerland where voters participate in national referendums as often as four times a year. The issues are usually narrow and specific, and their votes make laws that can be immediately applied.

The other approach is to allow the legislative body to complete or even modify referendum results. There are 23 states, including Maine, that authorize referendums initiated by voters, while 49 allow legislatures to put questions before the voters.

State legislatures can deal with trying the fulfill voters' decisions that cannot go directly into law. In Maine, when a vote authorizes action without providing necessary funding, the Legislature regains control. The 2004 vote on school funding has not gone into effect, because it might force an increase in state taxes.

A possible reform proposed for referendums would be to require a super-majority for passage. If, say, 60 percent of voters were needed, legislatures would be more likely to find ways of fulfilling the will of the people. Another suggestion is that the number of signatures to initiate a referendum could be increased.

The problem in the U.K. undoubtedly arose out of the lack of familiarity with direct democracy. The error was using a referendum. After the vote, the British Government mistakenly tried to keep Parliament out of the "Leave" process. It did not succeed.

In the U.S., Trump won in one of the four presidential elections since 1824 in which another candidate got more votes. Despite having won only a minority popular victory, he has sought to make huge changes in American policy. The House can block some of his moves, but Congress has given presidents great, unchecked powers.

Some House members propose impeachment, implying that it can be used for policy reasons, as in the past. Both of the earlier times it was tried amounted to a pure politics, and it failed.

Direct democracy works on a small scale, as in Switzerland. The New England town meeting system succeeds, though with low participation. But referendums are beginning to show defects, especially in mass democracies like the U.S. and the U.K.

Elected legislators need to exercise their powers. The British Parliament could have dealt better with E.U. issues by itself without first holding a referendum. Congress should cease delegating its powers to presidents and recover its constitutional authority.

Moderates count little in partisan world; voters harbor unrealistic hopes

Many voters consider themselves to be political moderates, not partisans on the right or left. To appeal for their votes, candidates claim they can "work across the aisle."

But do voters really favor political leaders who will sometimes vote in line with their wishes and sometimes against them? Is it possible to be a moderate politician, if the "aisle" turns out to be a canyon?

Moderate politics may be one of the grand myths of American politics and more wishful thinking by voters than reality.

A moderate might propose solutions to political issues that yield some satisfaction to each side, but also some dissatisfaction. Compromise might be acceptable, because everybody wins something, just not everything, they sought.

That kind of moderation is only possible if both sides are willing to give some ground. If one side insists on full acceptance of its demands, a moderate politician will fail. In Congress, the extremes of both parties show little willingness to accept anything less than complete victory.

The ideological wings of both parties now have enough seats to block compromise. Though still occasionally possible, it is unusual.

More often, what voters mean by "moderate" is the politician who generally supports their party but may sometimes split with it on key votes. Such a moderate may act independently when responding to their constituents or adhering to a personal principle when they resist party discipline. They may do so, especially if they don't tip the balance.

Some voters believe that on issues mattering a lot to them, the office holder can be counted on to split with their party. When that does not happen, the moderate can quickly be scorned as a mere partisan.

Take the case of Sen. Susan Collins. She provided one of the key votes that saved the Affordable Care Act and opposed some major Trump appointments. She has been considered to be a rare GOP moderate and most likely that is how she sees herself.

Then she voted with her party to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Everything changed. In the eyes of Kavanaugh's opponents, Collins became a loyal Trump supporter, though she had not supported him for president and had routinely backed presidential Supreme Court nominees.

Collins' situation is complicated by Sen. Mitch McConnell, her Republican leader in the Senate. As a member of his party, she inevitably votes to retain him as her Senate leader. But McConnell does not see some major issues as she does.

She is then exposed to his obvious willingness to back Trump and his strict discipline in the Senate, blocking many votes that might embarrass GOP senators. He usually bars compromises, insisting on his way or nothing. Collins may have to go along with him so she can get good Senate committee assignments, which he doles out.

McConnell initially expressed concern about President Trump's declaration of a national emergency to fund the Wall. But when Trump insisted, he changed position without hesitation. Collins had been among Republican senators opposed to the declaration. McConnell simply ignored them. She stuck to her opposition.

Does that make her a moderate? Now set against her, some voters disappointed by her Kavanaugh vote said her latest position was a sham, because she could count on Trump successfully vetoing the resolution disapproving his declaration. Had she supported Trump, she would also have been condemned.

Perhaps this case showed there's no room for moderates in American politics. They cannot create compromises, and independent-minded moderates cannot satisfy some voters unless they act like they belong to the other party. Then, of course, they would not be moderates.

It may also show that voters who say they want moderate politics are either chasing a political ghost or badly missing the excessively partisan nature of today's politics.

Suppose a majority of Maine voters had opposed Kavanaugh and believed his appointment would be the single most important issue before the Senate. By voting for Collins, they had given McConnell great power to steer the Kavanaugh vote.

Of course, that kind of foresight by voters is impossible. We cannot predict what votes or nominees are coming and if a senator will break party discipline on a critical issue – even if the senator is a moderate.

Politicians, even moderates, do not often split from their party. If voters want politicians who will reliably vote in favor of their positions, they may have a better chance if they choose between the parties.

In this age of extreme partisanship, more certainty may only come from voting as a partisan, not as a moderate.