Trump policy-making: a new version of 'Whack-a-mole'

Gordon L. Weil

"Whack-a-mole" is an old arcade game that's an exercise in futility.  It has come to mean that each time you try to solve a problem, another problem pops up.

In the original game, players would hit the mole on the head, forcing it back into its hole.  Another would pop up, and players had to move fast to hit each new one.  Satisfaction from whacking each mole did not last long.

Much American policy under President Trump is like playing Whack-a-mole.  In trying to fulfill his campaign promises, each problem Trump attacks seems to create another. 

Take China.  It pursues unfair trade policies and has a trade surplus with the U.S.  It also steals American trade secrets and forces U.S. companies to turn them over, if they want to do business in the huge Chinese market.

Trump whacked China by raising tariffs on its exports, a move reducing trade by making their goods more expensive.  He believes that will bring them to the bargaining table, where the U.S. can win concessions.

But higher tariffs raise prices for American consumers.  U.S. agriculture loses markets in China when it retaliates by increasing its own tariffs and buys elsewhere.  The trade deficit with China has grown a little worse, according to official statistics.

More moles.  Quit the Trans Pacific Partnership and lose allies opposing China and farm exports to Japan.  Meet with the North Korean leader without result, but boost his international standing.  Force a North American trade deal, creating hostility with neighbors. 

Taxes are too high, stifling economic development, Trump says.  They should be cut, notably for the middle class and for business, which will invest the money with the profits yielding offsetting tax revenues.  Smack that mole.

In 2017, the GOP lowered taxes on the biggest taxpayers, also supposedly the biggest investors.  It also allowed corporations to bring foreign profits home and cut the corporate tax rate.

But the tax bill's economic effect faded by 2019.  Corporations used added funds to buy back their stock and increase executive pay, with only a portion going into new productive capacity.  Federal debt grew faster than the promised new tax revenues.  That's the new mole.

Or immigration, Trump's signature issue.  He warned that Mexican gangsters and rapists were streaming into the U.S.  Building a wall, paid for by Mexico, would end the problem.  Meanwhile, separating immigrant families is stepped up, supposedly to serve as a deterrent.

But keeping his promise depended on Congress and Mexico, and neither agreed with him.  Immigrants arrived in even higher numbers.  They were not Mexicans, but mostly from Central America and Africa.  Instead of U.S. aid to slow the flow at the source, it was cut.  Americans were shocked by immigrant family separations. 

Undeterred, Trump promised to sweep up millions of undocumented immigrants and deport them.  But his immigration agencies were caught by surprise and were unready for the task.  The president backed off, saying he wouldn't carry out the threat if the Democrats agreed to his demands to change the immigration laws.

The mole: Iran.  The nuclear deal with Iran was unsatisfactory, because 15 years later Iran could choose to resume its production of nuclear fuel.  Also, the deal did not halt Iran's aggressive moves in the Middle East.

The U.S. withdrew from the deal and has put strong economic pressure on European participants to force them to stop buying Iranian oil.  No direct talks with Iran.

Iran announced that, if the U.S. stops its oil exports, it will restart nuclear fuel development that would have been forestalled under the deal.  The situation became more tense than it was under the now-rejected agreement, as both sides rattle their sabers.

When Iran shot down an American drone, which the U.S. says was over international waters, Trump readied a retaliatory strike, but then backed off.  He said the U.S. did not want to cause 150 deaths.  Is it possible the U.S. was not absolutely sure of the drone's location?

Trump has had some big successes.  He has set a new record in sustaining President Obama's economic recovery.  He has induced European countries to increase NATO-related spending.  He now has China's attention.

But he usually announces immediate solutions – Whack-a-mole – instead of traditionally less dramatic, incremental measures, creating new problems. 

Will the oncoming campaign and what he has learned as president lead Trump to cut back on playing the game?

In his recent immigration and Iran reversals, Trump may have begun to recognize that his sudden policy announcements raise new issues and don't finally settle matters.

Separation of church and state slowly erodes

Gordon L. Weil          

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a large Latin cross on public land in Maryland was no longer a religious symbol, but merely a tribute to fallen American soldiers of any faith.  Government was not giving special status to a Christian symbol, it ruled.

This blurring of the line between church and state takes place in a country in which religious belief is increasingly given special status.

We now run the risk of government a la carte, a system in which people can choose which laws they are willing to obey.

When religious belief conflicts with public policy, individuals may demand a choice not to obey the law.  Vaccination, same-sex marriage and abortion all raise this issue.

The Constitution's drafters thought they had avoided such conflicts.  Government can neither endorse any religion nor prevent people from practicing their religion or none at all. 

Of course, government leaders are influenced in their policies by their opinions and religious beliefs.  They may be guided by those beliefs, but they must stop short of imposing them on others.  Neutral laws, applying to all, are supposed to be adopted by government in the name of the people.

This approach arose from the emphasis on personal freedom, central to the American political system.  The threat, as Europe's history taught, was that government would force religion, perhaps even a specific religion, on the people. 

In practice, government did not impose religion on anybody, and it accommodated a wide variety of religious beliefs.  Such action was not merely meant to prevent laws that endangered the free exercise of religion.  So long as others were not harmed, it served to facilitate individual belief.

A clear example has been conscientious objector status.  When men were required to provide military service, those who refused to kill another person, even in defense of their country, could be assigned non-combat duty.

The risk to others of allowing some people not to obey the law may result from a conflict between religious belief and the public interest as defined by government.  That has happened in recent years over the issue of vaccination.

Decades ago, medical science demonstrated that inoculation against certain diseases could prevent their spread, even to the point of eliminating them.  Starting vaccination among children was usually the most effective method of preventing the spread of illness.

Without scientific evidence, but as a matter of belief, some people concluded that even if vaccinations prevented some diseases, they caused other maladies.  As a result, they chose to opt out of government-required vaccinations, a practice that was adopted by some religious groups.

While there was no evidence to support the belief that vaccinations caused illnesses, there was mounting evidence that the absence of vaccinations could allow the spread of fatal diseases that had almost been eliminated.  In short, opting out has an effect on others, not merely the children who were not vaccinated.

Vaccinations are under state control, and previously only two states denied a religious exemption from required inoculations.  With the spread of measles this year, the number of states accepting only a medical exemption has grown to five, including Maine, which acted this year.

A conflict between religious belief and public policy has also arisen as a result of the Affordable Care Act requiring access to contraception.  Before the passage of the ACA, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that religious belief could not overrule a neutral law of general application.

Congress then passed a law requiring courts to decide if a law subject to dispute on religious grounds was the least burdensome way of accomplishing a public purpose and, if not, to overturn it.

The result was that a company can inform the government it will not provide contraceptive coverage under the ACA, because such coverage is against the religious beliefs of its owners.  The government may then tell the insurer to provide such coverage.

Undoubtedly, the greatest conflict has arisen on abortion.  As a matter of religious belief, some find that abortion amounts to taking a life, while many others see it as a legal medical procedure, performed at the discretion of a woman.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is not prohibited by the Constitution or laws, the controversy continues.  Under their control of medical procedures, some states have imposed conditions intended to virtually prevent abortions.

In contrast, Maine this year required insurance coverage for abortions and funded this coverage in the low-income health plan

Conflicts between neutral laws and religious belief take on huge political roles.  Parties may exploit them as "wedge" issues, adopting positions on them to gain almost blind support for their policies on many other issues.  

Far from the Constitution's intent, religious belief may end up getting special consideration in government decisions.  The result could be an expanding menu of government policy options, with choice left to individuals, rather than a uniform set of general laws.   

Trump's the issue, but congressional math matters – especially Maine

Gordon L. Weil

Last week, President Trump travelled to Europe, jumped into British politics, patronized the Irish Prime Minister and attacked House Speaker Pelosi while he sat in front of American war graves at Normandy.

It's no surprise that Democrats and "Never Trumpers" want to see him defeated next year.  But Trump won't be the sole focus of the 2020 campaign.  Most Democratic presidential hopefuls are trying to keep voters' attention on issues.  And much will depend on congressional races.

In fact, Republicans may focus more on Trump than will the Democrats.  Because he has broad backing within his party, they strongly support his reelection with its possible coattail effect for their congressional candidates.  If the party controls the presidency and the House or Senate, it rules.

For the Democrats, there's a dilemma.  Should they try to unify around a progressive platform or seek to draw moderate voters away from Trump Republicans?  It's less about Trump than a focus on the political math.  In that calculation, Maine matters.

Looking at the House of Representatives, in 2018 the Democrats picked up a surprising number of seats in formerly GOP districts.  Not only was the vote about Trump, but it reflected reduced ability of Republican state legislatures to gerrymander, resulting in more fairly designed districts.   

The GOP will target first-term Democrats like Maine's Second District Representative Jared Golden.  He has remained independent of his party's liberal wing in hopes of boosting his narrow margin in last year's election. 

Even state legislative races will matter to congressional math.  The new legislatures will draw House district lines for the next 10 years.  Republicans have benefitted in recent decades, but their gains could be reduced or erased by Democratic legislatures or neutral redistricting commissions.

Politically influenced district lines exist all over the country.  Even with just two districts in Maine, redrawing the line could improve Democratic chances of holding both House seats.  Moving some of the party's voters into the Second District could also reduce the chances of the GOP picking up one of the state's electoral votes.

As for the U.S. Senate, Democrats held 25 of the 35 contested seats in the 2018 elections.  They surprised the pundits, losing only a net two seats.  The GOP gained only a 53-47 majority.

Next year, the situation flips with 22 GOP seats up for grabs out of 34 to be contested.  The Democrats may find that picking up the four seats needed for a safe majority will be difficult. Much depends on the mood of the voters, incumbents' records and turnout, especially among African Americans, women and the young.

Sen. Susan Collins is considered vulnerable because of her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the plentiful Democratic money that could match her large war chest.  She remains popular, so much depends upon whether the Democrats can field a strong candidate.

Collins's election could prove to be a key factor in the battle for the Senate control.  If the Democrats fail to win a majority, Mitch McConnell would remain in charge, assuming he holds onto his own seat in Kentucky.  He needs Collins' support.

This congressional math suggests that there will be more to the elections next year than an up-or-down vote on Trump.  But the media will keep him the focus.

The Democrats seek to win by attacking his trade tactics that cost jobs and raised prices and the GOP tax cuts favoring the wealthy.  They believe his backing can be stripped away by showing his supporters that they have been hurt by his policies.

That means Democrats may avoid making their main focus his lack of truthfulness or treatment of women, because such arguments will not necessarily move his backers.

The Republican Party is now almost totally Trump's and he enjoys overwhelming popularity within his party.  His political challenge is how far beyond the party, whose supporters number less than either Democrats or independents, his appeal extends.  He cannot win without votes from more than Republicans.

Trump relishes the challenge and stays on message.  While he must avoid alienating his congressional allies, he pushes the limits of traditional constraints on presidential action. 

His brash style seems to remain popular with many voters.  Still, Trump's 2016 victory may owe more to a Democratic candidate who failed to inspire her party's faithful in key states like Pennsylvania and Michigan than to his appeal.  

In 2020, while the Democrats' policies emphasize women, the young, consumers and the environment, he believes he could benefit from the extended economic recovery, immigration fears and nostalgia for the America of yesteryear.

Impeach Trump? Good case on either side

Gordon L. Weil

Independence Day comes in less than a month.  Many remember it as marking end of British rule over the American colonies.  But, as the Declaration of Independence itself stated, the purpose was to end "all allegiance to the British crown."

The Declaration is not a collection of grievances about Britain.  It is a list of complaints about King George III.  For example, it charges: "He has obstructed the administration of justice...."

Because of their experience under the British king, the Founders worried about a strong executive.  For its first 13 years, U.S. lacked the office of president.  Congress had the lead role.

Congress has since given the president great powers.  Some occupants of the Oval Office claim the office is "unitary," giving the president supreme power in the government.  Forget checks and balances.  The president may exercise even greater powers than those given by the Constitution.

The drafters of the Constitution worried about such a theory.  One protective measure they included was impeachment and removal from office.  They said that federal officials who engaged in "high crimes and misdemeanors" in their conduct while in office or to gain election could be removed by Congress.

Impeachment talk grows.  More Democrats, resentful of President Trump's breach of constitutional and government traditions, now favor it.  Opponents are wary, but still complain that calls for impeachment are purely political.

The Constitution's drafters understood impeachment was a political act by elected politicians.  Otherwise, they might have turned it over to the Supreme Court, supposedly politically independent.  The Founders required a two-thirds Senate majority for removal from office, reducing the chances of purely partisan action.

The current discussion is based mainly on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's conclusion that Trump may have tried to obstruct justice, but that he cannot be prosecuted while in office.  Mueller made it obvious that the only way to decide the question now was up to Congress.

Why impeach?

It is the right thing to do.  Mueller has provided evidence of possible obstruction of justice.  Impeachment could focus on alleged obstruction and not the host of Democratic complaints.

Evidence that Trump tried to block the Mueller investigation merits hearings to yield a conclusion.  President Trump and Attorney-General Barr should not be allowed to whitewash the findings. 

Impeachment by the Democratic House is almost certain to result from an investigation.  It should not matter that the Republican Senate would not remove him.

Former Maine GOP House and Senate member Bill Cohen advocates a House investigation.  He believes that, as the facts are brought out, sentiment for further steps against Trump would grow.

That was Cohen's experience on the House committee that voted the impeachment of President Nixon in 1974.  Public opinion initially opposed ousting Nixon, but, by the time he resigned, he was sure to be removed by the Senate.

Another view is that an impeachment investigation will benefit Democrats politically by undermining Trump's support.  Some Republicans could no longer stick with their president, improving the chances for Democratic candidates in next year's elections.

Why avoid impeachment?

It won't work.  While a Democratic House might impeach Trump, a Republican Senate would not remove him.  Only if House and, possibly, Senate Republicans begin talking about impeachment would it be worth considering.

Short of impeaching the president, Congress could limit the powers it has generously given the White House.  That would take a veto-proof majority, but would Republicans split with Trump, even to help Congress restore its constitutional role? 

Impeachment might seem excessively partisan.  Just as the misguided GOP House impeachment of President Bill Clinton hurt the Republicans in the following elections, the same might be true for the Democrats in 2020.  The process could be divisive, exactly what many Americans say they don't want.

Politically, it might even help Trump.  He could point to the Democrats as being so unhappy about the results of the 2016 elections that they prevented the Wall and other useful legislation and even tried to reverse the result.  He could cast himself as the victim of the opposition.

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes impeachment, because she fears it would jeopardize chances of gaining moderate GOP support and would draw attention away from key issues.  Many of the party's presidential candidates favor impeachment, seeing it as a way to rally primary voters.

The impeachment process would get in the way of doing almost any other government business.  The U.S. would be buried in tweets and counter-tweets.

Take your pick.  Congress faces a tough decision with no easy answer.

Election clash over government's role – Europe last week, U.S. next year

Gordon L. Weil

In European restaurants, dishes on the menu have footnotes, numbers that are a key to the food allergies of each item.

The European Union has issued a rule requiring this information.  To some, this rule might seem like overkill.  Maybe customers should take of themselves.

That sort of EU power represented the main issue in last week's elections for the European Parliament.  Parties in control of several countries lean to the far right and want to weaken the EU.  Others argue that a more unified Europe produces benefits that individual countries can't.

These European elections, for a population far greater than the US, might be a preview of next year's presidential and congressional elections.  On both sides of the Atlantic, right-wing parties want to reduce the power of the central government.

The forecasts were for a low turnout and major gains for the far-right, led by the Brexit Party, which wants to get the U.K. out of the EU.  By the same token, if the American turnout is low next years, pundits might reasonably expect Trump Republicans to strengthen their hold on government.

I was in Europe during the voting and found the results surprising.  Turnout was greater than it has been in 25 years and increased for the first time in 40 years.  Although the hard-right parties gained, the left Greens and Liberal Democrats did even better.

The governing parties of the center lost seats, but more went to the left than to the right.  Overall, that left the European Parliament still under the solid control of pro-Europeans.

In Britain, the parties on either side of the Brexit battle each received the same amount of support.  The traditional Conservative and Labour Parties that have waffled on the issue were blasted in the elections.  The result could be anything from an early exit to a new UK referendum.

While the results seem to mean greater American-style polarization, it more importantly shows the growing strength of the political left.  The increased turnout seems to have been driven, at least in some countries, by young voters sending the message they like Europe, even with its rules.

To take just one practical example, the EU outlawed roaming charges on cell phones on Europe, overriding national borders.  Young people like to be able to call from Estonia to Portugal without such charges.

What might the European elections forecast for the 2020 elections in the U.S.?

The left is a strong and growing political force.  It is obviously gaining support in reaction to right-wing moves in national parliaments.  As Brexit turns the U.K. to the right, the Greens rise.  The British Liberal Democrats, once thought to be almost dead, has surged past the traditional parties.

That could mean that left-wing Democrats in the U.S. would not settle for middle-of-the-road leadership.  The rise of the left might not work as well as in Europe, because of the two party American system.

In fact, another message from Europe is that the right unifies more easily than the left.  If the Democrats splinter, that could allow for continued minority control by the Trump GOP.

Also, turnout seems to work as expected.  While small voter participation helps Republicans and the far-right, big numbers help Democrats.  That explains why the GOP seeks to suppress Democrats' voting.  But young voters, especially those voting for the first time, can change the turnout considerably.

Political parties come and they may also go, if they really miss the mood of the electorate.  British Prime Minister Theresa May resigned, because she has failed to find a Brexit solution.  Her party almost disappeared in last week's elections.  Traditional conservative parties elsewhere are also seriously challenged.

In the US, where Trump has captured the Republican Party, what would happen if there were a major Democratic victory in 2020?  Would more moderate Republicans take control, justifying Susan Collins' party loyalty during the Trump presidency, or would the party be pushed aside by a new business-oriented party.

Trump will stress his friendship for the far-right leaders in Europe as a way of showing he is in the mainstream of a new brand of politics.  But the European result suggests that this new, nationalistic movement may have peaked.  Given a chance, it did not prevail.

Just as in Europe, the U.S. now faces an election that may be an historic turning point.  The 2020 election would either add momentum to Trump's dismantling of the traditional federal government or it may be a complete rejection of attacks on government and renewed support for its role.

Presidential candidates, now including oldsters, should name their running mates

Gordon L. Weil

The world is growing older.  Except for Africa south of the Sahara, the average age is increasing.

There are more old people thanks to medical advances that, together with lifestyle changes, help prolong life.  At the same time, there are fewer young people as parents choose to have smaller families.  While China ended its rule requiring one-child families, many Chinese seem to have grown accustomed to it.

The increase in the length of life is not consistent around the world or even in the U.S.  There is a 15-year difference in life expectancy between the wealthiest and poorest Americans, according to a report in London's Financial Times.

There's also a difference between people who keep employed, even in volunteer jobs or athletic activities, and those who become couch potatoes in retirement.  Keep active and you live longer and healthier.

One major factor in extending lives is a reduction in the number of smokers.  Smoking's toll shows up as people age. 

Obesity is the new smoking.  About one-third of Americans is obese and another third is overweight. This causes high health care costs and a lower American lifespan than in Japan, France, and Greece, among many others.  The median age in the U.S. is 38.  In Japan, it is 47.3 and, in Greece, 44.5.

Maine, at 44.6, has the highest median age of any state.  That makes the state a world leader.  What it learns about dealing with aging and improving the quality of life for older people could provide valuable tools for the rest of the country and even other countries.  Here's an economic development opportunity.

Longer lives are also having political effects.  A higher percentage of older people vote than do other age groups.  Traditionally mostly Republicans, they have begun to move toward the Democrats.  In political campaigns, older Americans should be added to the list of target groups like women, minorities and the young.

The most obvious effect of an older population is among the presidential candidates.  Bernie Sanders, 77, and Joe Biden, 76, lead the Democratic pack.  Donald Trump, 72, is the oldest person ever elected president.  Elizabeth Warren, 69, could end her first term at 75, older than Trump will end his.

Robert Kaiser, 76, a former editor of the Washington Post, worries about older presidents.  He writes the presidency is "perhaps the hardest job in the world."  Aging experts think it is a job for a person of 50 more so than one of 70, he says.

Because individuals differ from one another, general findings may not apply to every older person.  But studies show that, on almost all measures of intellectual ability, old people suffer in comparison with younger adults

It may be difficult for older people to admit the reduction in their memory or ability to handle complex tasks.  You can more easily recognize reduced lung capacity or muscle strength.  For older people, including presidential candidates, mental capacity slows down like physical ability.

Ronald Reagan is currently ranked as the oldest president, though Trump would pass him.  His deteriorating mental agility while in office was recognized.  That can be a factor for today's candidates.  Plus, older presidents have a significantly greater possibility of dying in office than usual. 

Presidential candidates make only one decision during the course of a campaign that will bind them if they gain the highest office.  And it is a decision they usually make in the euphoria of their victory just before or just after they have received their party's nomination.

The nominees pick their vice presidential running mates for a variety of reasons.  A man has picked a woman.  A black has picked a white.  A northerner has picked a southerner.  A Republican has picked a Democrat.  These moves were designed to "balance" the ticket and improve chances of winning.  All, except one, worked.

But the principal role of the vice president is to be a "heartbeat away" from being president.  In 1944, Democrat kingmakers were reasonably sure that Franklin D. Roosevelt would not live through his fourth term and selected Harry Truman, a man who knew his way around Washington, to succeed him.

Given the age of some of the presidential candidates, they should recognize voters are electing two people who could be president, not just a candidate and a ticket balancer.  Of course, if older candidates make a choice, others will have to follow.  The wisdom of their choices can then be a factor in our choice.

Then, the rest of us can focus on taking off a few pounds and keeping active.

Democrats worry about possible election conspiracy claims

Gordon L. Weil

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants the Democratic presidential candidate next year to score a landslide victory over President Trump.

If he lost by a narrow margin, she worries that Trump would challenge the result, claiming there had been a conspiracy to rig the election.  He might then refuse to leave office at the end of his term. 

Her worry might seem far-fetched, but she notes that Trump continues to challenge Hillary Clinton's nearly three million popular vote majority in 2016.  He claims there was massive illegal voting for her, though nobody has produced any evidence of it.

Pelosi's solution would be for the Democrat to win by a large enough number of votes that it would be impossible to make a potentially believable claim that Trump's defeat resulted from massive vote fraud.

Whatever they say about focusing mainly on the issues, the Democrats all have one principal goal – getting Trump out of the Oval Office.  Some assert he has made the country ripe for a major move to the left.    

The Speaker argues that the party should pick a middle-of-the road candidate who could hold onto the Trump voters who voted for Democratic congressional candidates last year.  She does not see a winning answer to Trump politics being a radical turn to the left, as do some Democratic hopefuls. 

She is concerned that Trump does not like or respect constitutional limits and practice.  He could seek to override the limits on his term in office by declaring a conspiracy-driven national emergency.  Given the Supreme Court's partisan Bush-Gore decision in 2000, Trump might even hope for legal backing allowing him to hold onto power.

If this all seems like Nancy dreaming, it underrates the role of conspiracy thinking and false information in today's political scene.  Fantastic stories are offered as explanation of major claims.  "Facts" are created to support these tales, even if there is no evidence for them.

The Washington Post Fact Checker, generally regarded as the best in the country, has documented more than 10,000 times since he took office when Trump has made a statement that was not true.  Many are repetitions.  He relies on manufactured facts to support policies he advocates.

He claims that those who oppose his misstatements are producing "fake news."  It matters little to him that these reports can provide evidence.  Similarly, this way of viewing events might make possible charges of a conspiracy to commit vote fraud.

Just how widespread a conspiracy can extend is illustrated by the claim that vaccinations cause autism in children.  There is no evidence this is true.  The result has been the dangerous spread of measles and even some deaths.  The illness could have virtually been eliminated if people were vaccinated.

Trump's own persistent claim that President Obama was not born in the U.S. is another example of a widespread but false belief spread by a claim lacking evidence.  Obama finally produced his birth certificate, but even that was questioned.  In light of Trump's refusal to reveal his tax returns, Obama probably should have ignored him.

Who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?  For the answer, you can pick from a menu of conspiracy theories, all stated with firm conviction.  Was the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre in Connecticut a performance by actors and staged by gun opponents, leaving nobody really dead?  No facts, no evidence.

Did Russia try to influence the 2016 presidential election in favor of Trump, even if his campaign did nothing more than accept the help?  Conspiracy claim or fact?

A conspiracy balloon should be popped by solid facts reported by the independent media relying on evidence.  A lot of that is happening, but faces two problems.

First, newspapers and cable channels have lined up editorially for or against Trump and it may seem their news coverage is biased.  That's all the more true when opinion is offered as if it were a news report.

The other reason the media may be mistrusted is that readers and viewers bring their prejudices with them.  If you readily believe in conspiracies, then you may look behind a straight news report to find a hidden meaning.  A wide sense of cynicism exists, making suspect any objective journalism.

That's why Pelosi may be right about what her party needs.  Its candidate would not only win, but must win massively.  Only then could conspiracy be forced to the fringes.

Voters can't be passive, but must make the effort to separate fact from opinion, rejecting unfounded conspiracies.  Even if free speech allows anything to be said, facts matter.