Covid-19 was also on the ballot

 

Gordon L. Weil

The 2020 elections have taken place on two levels.  One can prove to be deadly.

Voters have been choosing the president, the Senate and the House.  The results of the voting also show that tens of millions place selfish interest above community welfare in dealing with Covid-19.

In selecting the nation’s leaders, voters have undoubtedly disappointed the Democrats and rewarded the Trump Republicans for their stance on the coronavirus.

There was no Democratic landslide. Whatever ultimately happens after all the votes are counted, the outcome reveals a deep split about the role of government established under President Franklin D. Roosevelt but also the health of the people.

President Trump saw his path to reelection based mainly on the strong economy in which unemployment was historically low and people had money in their pockets.  Surveys showed a majority feel better off under his presidency, but believe that the country is worse off.

Farmers provide a good example of his brand of politics. Though his trade policy cost them major markets, it brought in new import tariff revenues, collected from consumers through higher prices. Those funds were used to compensate the farmers.  Trump protected their incomes using funds raised from other Americans.

The farmers stuck with the president. Perhaps unwittingly, many of the contributing consumers paid the price of cutting cheap imports from China.  American agriculture suffered and retail prices rose a bit, both not good for the country. 

But the farmers’ incomes were protected.  They voted overwhelmingly for Trump and his party. His policy was good for them, if not for everybody else. 

This kind of trade-off is also happening on a far more important issue.

Covid-19 presented Trump with a problem he could not manage as easily. Instead, he would first try to convince people that it was far less harmful than it turned out to be. For him, minimizing its effects and dismissing strong health measures would allow the economy to resume its growth on which his reelection depended.

But the illness is real.  Trump failed to deal with its harmful effects.  According to polls, most Americans thought he had not handled the threat competently.  Joe Biden and the Democrats believed his failure would cost Trump Republicans the election, and they tried to make it the chief issue.

By minimizing the impact of the coronavirus, Trump created a new political reality that will survive the direct results of the election.  This column is written before the final outcome is settled, though Joe Biden looks like he will struggle to be a uniting president leading a divided nation.  That division will extend to public health.

In voting for Trump and his party, a huge segment of the electorate sent a message about the country.  In agreement with Trump, many believed that even if the price of economic growth were added illness and deaths, the price was worth paying.

Dr. Scott Atlas, Trump’s quack medical advisor, was selected because he provided the advice the president wanted. Let the economy reopen normally, he says, but offer special protection to the most vulnerable.  That way the human herd could protect itself, though inevitably there will be some deaths.

Doctors who had made their careers understanding viruses knew that without stopping the spread of the virus, you cannot protect the vulnerable. Many older Americans would die.  Under Trump’s growth-at-all-costs policy, they are expendable, sacrifices on the altar of prosperity.

A supporting message came from Trump’s backers: fighting the virus by trying to stop its spread by requiring masks and separation violates individual rights under the Constitution. 

The basic purpose of democratic government is to protect public health and safety. That duty exists with or without a formal constitution.  People create a government for their common protection.  A constitution determines the rules of government but not human rights.

Yet some have chosen to elevate the American Constitution to the level of the Ten Commandments. A document written in a few weeks by 39 men some 233 years ago merits respect equal to the tablets handed down to Moses.

Trump’s political allies elevated the right not to wear a mask, on the grounds that it violated personal freedom, into a wedge issue.  In return for his protecting this single “right,” they would allow him broad power to set all other national policies.

Protecting the right to dismiss health guidance became the ultimate political value. True believers selfishly choose to ignore the threat they pose to others by not wearing a mask.

Maine was fortunate in having elected a Legislature likely to support Gov. Mills, whose tough stance on Covid-19 has yielded more favorable results than in almost any other state. Maybe that’s a sign of the oldest state population protecting itself.

Ultimately what may matter most is the second election – the choice of self over community, made by tens of millions of Americans.  Perhaps that vote will one day be reversed, but at what price?

 

 

After the voting ends: “It ain’t over ’til it’s over”

 

“It’s déjà vu all over again,” said Yogi Berra, leading American philosopher and Hall of Fame baseball player.

The rushed appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court shows that’s exactly what President Trump wants. In 2000, a partisan Supreme Court decided the election, picking Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore. Could it happen again?

In its 2000 decision, the Court implied that it would not routinely override state management of federal elections, as the Constitution provides.

That case involved constitutional violations in Florida’s ballot counting. Now the issue may be mail-in voting in many states. The Trump campaign must show more than the possibility that mail-in ballots permit fraud; it would have to show evidence of many actual cases of fraud.

In view of Bush v. Gore, most states have tightened their voting systems, making them less vulnerable to such complaints. This week, most justices said they would not displace state control, though Kavanaugh used Trump’s rhetoric against a lengthened count.

How could the post election play out?  Much depends on the exact outcome. If either candidate wins a landslide victory, there would be little incentive to challenge the results in multiple states.

Under the Constitution, the states run their own presidential elections. The first appeal from a state’s handling of the balloting would be to state election officials and state courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court would not be the court first used, because it must hear such cases on appeal. Bush v. Gore was decided on appeal from the Florida Supreme Court.

If no constitutional standard had been violated, the Supreme Court should not act as if it were a state court. Facing a dispute that could not be readily resolved, a state might struggle to choose its electors. That happened when the Court stepped or overstepped into the Florida case.

If the national result were nearly a tie, there might be challenges in several states not just one. The Trump campaign appears to believe that the outcome will be close, and it is prepared to challenge in a number of states. Presumably, the Biden campaign is also ready for a court war.

But courts need not determine the result. The Constitution contains rules for electing the president when neither ticket has the required 270 votes.

At noon on January 3, 2021, the new Congress is seated. At noon on January 20, the terms of Trump and Pence end. No exceptions are possible. The new Congress could try to adopt a law allowing for an acting president, but that’s highly unlikely.

The new House of Representatives would choose the president. After the 1824 and 1876 elections, the House fashioned political deals and elected the president.

In the House, each state has one vote. All 50 states are equal, and a state’s vote is determined by the state’s representatives, no matter how many or how few. Right now, there are more Republican than Democratic state delegations.

That may partly explain Trump’s focus on Maine’s Second District. If one representative were a Democrat and the other a Republican, the state would be deadlocked. Right now, both districts are represented by Democrats, which would yield a vote for Biden.

In 2000, the Court might have left the decision to the House (where Bush would have likely won), but it managed to find a constitutional question. What would happen now, if a partisan Court simply decided to substitute its judgment for the decisions of one or more states?

Its decision might be accepted by the loser, as Gore did. But, if there were a large popular majority nationally that the Court ignored, a crisis could result. Would the Court override a popular majority as it did in 2000? Maybe not, if it were big enough.

The House might ignore a Court ruling and proceed to its own vote if it produced a different result. President Andrew Jackson rejected a Supreme Court decision, stating it would not be enforced or obeyed. The Court’s decision, favorable to the Cherokee Indians, was ignored by the other two branches.

The House could have the last word. The Supreme Court would be damaged, and the country would be dangerously divided.

Though the three branches are supposedly equal, Congress can determine the Court’s jurisdiction. It could later strip the Court of the power to decide presidential elections. It could enlarge the Court to blunt the conservatives’ power. The justices will be aware of these possibilities.

The outcome may be uncertain unless the election produces a large majority for the winner, putting the result beyond debate. But the media might even find a way of projecting a winner right after the election.

Still, as Yogi famously said, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

 

Voters giving Trump, Biden blank check on foreign policy

 

The winner of the presidential race will get a blank check from the voters on one of the most important issues – America’s relations with the rest of the world.

Foreign policy has been invisible in the presidential campaign. Though not formally scheduled for any debate, President Trump wanted it included so he could attack Biden on China.

Neither candidate has laid out a full foreign policy. It’s all about issues to embarrass the opponent. The media coverage of major events abroad has been slim.

President Trump boosts “America First” often seen as meaning “America Alone.”  No more world leader.

He beats up on China, but craves a trade deal. He sees any unfavorable trade balance with any country as unfair. He urges allies to pay more for their defense, even if that saves the U.S. nothing . In fact, the U.S. military budget grows, mostly for its own sake.

He favors dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and North Korea. He likes the U.K prime minister but knocks other allied leaders in Canada, Denmark (because she would not sell him Greenland), Germany and France.

His various moves yield no consistent foreign policy and it would likely remain the same. The result and possibly Trump’s intent is a withdrawal from world leadership, leaving the field open for either chaos or China.

Former Vice President Biden would attempt to restore the previous national foreign policy. His goal would be to bring back the American role as world leader, but that may not be possible.

He has pledged to rejoin the Paris climate agreement, though that accord is more an expression of good intentions than an actual commitment. Trump’s rejection of it expressed his opposition to combating climate change. At one stroke, Biden could bring the U.S. back into the community of nations.

When Trump and Hillary Clinton threw out the Trans Pacific Partnership, they thought they were dropping a bad trade deal. They missed the fact that it was really an alliance against China. It continues without the U.S, but Biden says nothing about refashioning it.

How would Biden deal with dictators? Does Saudi Arabia's crown prince continue to get away with orchestrating murder? Is Russia's Putin allowed to meddle in U.S. politics and to counter U.S. interests? Will China get a free pass on building its phony islands to house new military bases?

Does Netanyahu have U.S. support for anything he wants? Does Biden try to restart efforts at least delaying Iran's nuclear weapons development?

Biden cannot merely try to return to the world the way it was before Trump. It's not possible, even if that was all he wanted.

Above all, having elected Donald Trump, the U.S. will never be seen as the leader it was. This is not a question of popularity or personality, but of trust and reliability.

The U.S. was the assumed world leader with many other countries willing to follow its course. For fear of another Trump episode, they will no longer follow so readily.

The world has changed. China has unveiled its desire to share world leadership with the U.S. if not replace it. Right-wing governments have emerged in Europe. Africa is on the move. Middle East countries are becoming less unified in their attitudes toward Israel and each other.

The departure of the U.K. from the European Union will lead to an enlarged role for the Germans and French and reduced British influence.

If you have read this far, you may either be bored or bewildered if all this really matters. So what if a person's view on a single issue like Covid-19, the Affordable Care Act, abortion or guns provides a blank check for whoever is president in dealing with foreign affairs?

One good reason is money. The federal budget, which has an enormous economic impact, is composed of three main parts. One part consists of Social Security, Medicare and similar programs. The second is defense and the third is everything else from the FBI to farming.

Under Trump, military spending has outstripped the third part of the budget. Of course, defense means protecting the homeland. But it begins abroad, not merely at our shores. That makes it part of our foreign policy.

So the U.S. spends a huge amount of money to support a foreign policy we don't have. If you don't like big government spending too much money without good reason, there's where it starts.

America supposedly favors some shared values like democracy. U.S. foreign policy should support values that represent what the public wants. But how do we know that? This year's GOP platform was simply a statement that all we want is whatever the president wants.

After this year's election, it looks like the president gets that blank check.

 

Trump, master of 'whataboutism'

 

America has a bad case of "whataboutism." Here's how it works.

Democrats say: President Trump has completely bungled the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump answers: What about the way Obama-Biden mishandled the swine flu?

Conclusion: The Democrats screwed up the swine flu years ago, making their criticism of Trump's handling of Covid-19 false.

In another case:

Former Vice President Biden: You should condemn white supremacy.

Trump: What about your friends, the liberals and antifa? They are the bigger problem.

Conclusion: The extreme left is worse than the extreme right, so I don’t need to condemn white extremism.

Whataboutism has been around for a long time. It is a slick way to answer a charge with a countercharge, dodging the original criticism. These days with Trump, to paraphrase the old movie line about love, the result is, "Being president means never having to say you're sorry."

The ploy helps people worried by the charge, but who want to justify their continued support. It gets them off the hook, when they can ignore the charge and keep on backing the accused for their own reasons.

Trump who continually plays to his core constituency finds whataboutism a useful tool. Just as important, he may induce other, unwary people to see the original criticism as an unfair attack on him, possibly leading to their support.

Whataboutism has two flaws.

The more obvious problem is that, while the original charge may be true, the countercharge is not true. But it is stated which such conviction and as a balancing argument against the truth, so that it, too, sounds like the truth.

Take the virus debate. Covid-19 has been the cause of death of more than 220,000 people in the U.S. We still have no way of knowing when it will have run its course and how many victims it will ultimately claim. The early, disorganized response to it was left largely to the states.

The 2009 swine flu pandemic took 12,500 lives in the U.S., an impact similar to the annual flu. Under President Obama, there was a federal response from the first outbreak.

Conclusion: Both pandemics were harmful, but not strictly comparable. Certainly the answer to the charge about dealing with Covid-19 was not a countercharge about the earlier, far less harmful and well-managed pandemic.

As for right- and left-wing extremists, Trump fails to condemn white supremacists, who have formed organized militant groups, some supporting him. Biden has condemned extremism on both sides. The FBI states that antifa (short for "anti-fascist") is not a group but a protest movement.

To obscure his failure to use the term "white supremacy," at 29:39 minutes into the presidential debate Trump charged that Biden refuses to say the words "law enforcement." He still makes that charge. Yet twice, at 30:59 and 37:54 into the debate, Biden did use the term.

The second flaw is that, even if Trump were correct, two wrongs don't make a right. Suppose his criticism of Democrats is accurate. While their actions might be worthy of criticism, how does that relieve him of responsibility for his own actions?

If whataboutism were accepted as a political defense, the obvious result would be the elimination of any standards of public behavior. Each act would become a precedent excusing later acts as being no worse. All it would take to start the ball rolling downhill would be the first act.

Here, Trump is the master. He sets new low standards in political behavior unmatched in American presidential history. The risk is that they will become the baseline for more whataboutism.

In his furious response to the vice presidential debate, he asserted that Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, is a Communist. Communism is a bit outdated as the principal U.S. adversary, perhaps showing senior citizen Trump's frame of reference. But it is a serious charge. 

No top-of-the-ticket candidate has ever charged that the opposing national ticket included a Communist. Trump set a new low.

Trump has failed to disclose his tax returns and medical reports, falling below the standards followed by the last eight presidents. This is a new standard without any reasonable justification.

Medical information about the effect of experimental drugs or a mood-altering steroid on a man with the nuclear weapon trigger is important to the public. If they have no effect, tell us. And his health condition could legitimately influence how people vote.

In 2016, he expressed willingness to release his tax returns, though he imposed phony conditions, but he still fights tenaciously to keep them secret even from law enforcement. Did he lie in his first campaign?

His record-setting number of lies has set an impressively low standard for whataboutism. Any future president could lie regularly, while claiming, "What about Trump?"