Insurrection: Participation by Police and Military

 The participation of police officers and active duty military personnel in the insurrection of January 6 is not entirely surprising, given what we already knew about the presence of racist, white supremacist, and pro-trump elements among their ranks. Nevertheless, it is a serious problem. People sworn to protect and defend the Constitution took it upon themselves to decide that the duly consituted legislative branch of the United States government was a "domestic enemy" of the government and that it was their right and duty to attempt to overthrow it by force and violence. They had no orders coming through their chain of command. They had only their personal belief. How did it come about, and how can it be prevented in the future? It seems to me that a large part of the problem may be a lack of education in civics. I could be wrong, but my impression is that most American schoolchildren do not receive the kind of education in civics which was commonplace sixty years ago. From the early years, they learned, in progressively growing detail, that America was founded on principles of God-given universal human rights, that our system of governments, federal and state, was designed to protect those rights by limiting governmental power and distributing it among different levels and institutions. Nevertheless, each element of government was authoritative within its own sphere. Our Constitution was studied as a work of genius, bakancing various interests in light of a keen awareness of human propensities to evil. In high school, the education was capped with a course specifically in American government, which presented the design and function of our constitutional system in detail. Such an education should prevent all but the most gullible from going rogue as far too many of our men and women in uniform seem to have done. Recently we have seen the 1619 Project proclaiming to all and sundry that racism and white supremacy are what it means to be an American — precisely what many of the insurrectionists seem to believe. I disaagree with that view of America. I say that America as a nation has always embraced the principles of the Declaration of Independence, even when we have failed to live up to them, when some Americans ignored or denied them, when others compromised them. I do not want future police officers and soldiers to be taught from their earliest days in school that America means white supremacy. We must overcome the deep mistrust of our system of government which allowed insurrection to flourish among people who were sworn to defend the Constitution but clearly did not understand what that oath meant. Certainly, the military and the police do not lose their right to have an opinion about what is best for our country and to vote for the candidates of their choice, but no citizen has the right to resort to force and violence to attempt to impose their opinion, much less one who has taken an direct oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Of course, a proper education in American history and civics is essential for the entire population.

Libertarians on Twitter

Someone tweeted to the effect that government protection of public safety is tyranny. I responded, initiating a couple of days of sporadic back-and-forths with tweeters who called themselves libertarians. The context was the defiance of restrictions on public gatherings, which was happening in various ways in California, Texas, and Michigan.

First, I mentioned that promoting safety is an object for which the Declaration of Independence (=Thomas Jefferson) says people organize their governments. Tweeter said it wasn't in the Declaration, so I gave him the link and told him where to find it. Properly chastened, he noted that it isn't law. So I gave him law. Multiple quotes from the Massachusetts Constitution (drafted by John Adams). My point, of course, was that protection of public safety was clearly part of the police powers of government according to the political philosophy of the founders and the form of government they established.

At this point others joined in. State law didn't matter. States couldn't ignore the Constitution. They seemed to think that States' powers are granted by the Constitution (or at least to be found in federal statute). So I pointed out that the federal government didn't create the States or give them their powers. States already existed and had their powers before the Constitution was adopted. But they reminded me that the States were bound by the First and Second Amendments. I noted offhand that it was a Supreme Court interpretation, not an explicit text, which found that those Amendments applied to the States.

Someone suggested that I didn't know the purpose of the Second Amendment, so I quoted its opening words, "A well regulated Militia." Apparently some tweeters don't believe what the Constitution says, because they continued to "like" the tweet that said I didn't know the purpose of the Amendment. Here we encounter the belief — never expressed directly but apparently behind their viewpoint — that the right to bear arms was intended to enable the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. Actually, as I learned by looking more closely at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, one of Congress's powers is to call forth the Militia, organized by the States, to "suppress insurrection." The discussion petered out after I called that to their attention.

Meanwhile, though, there were some further tweets from me about the difference between poor judgment in the exercise of lawful powers, and tyranny; about the availability of remedies other than insurrection, such as court cases and elections; about the difference between their ideology verging on anarchism and the founders' belief in government providing for ordered liberty. Early on, I told two of them, "I'll take Jefferson and Adams over you any day of the week and twice on Sunday."

Somebody said he had never consented to the Constitution. To which the basic answer is, if you don't like it you're free to leave, but if you don't leave, you have no right to overthrow what the rest of us consent to.

There was also the person who complained that he needed to be free to earn a living to support his family. First I mentioned the bailouts enacted by Congress. I could also have mentioned unemployment insurance and food pantries. I.e., there is no need for his family to starve. But instead, I went full on sarcastic and reminded him that for decades people have been saying you need to prepare to survive on your own. If he's still unprepared to go into the forest and shoot a deer, he has been pathetically irresponsible.

At the end a tweeter from California "followed" me. I checked out his tweets and found him pretty balanced, so I decided to follow back. I also commented that unfortunately "nobody" understands or cares about Federalism, limited government, or separation of powers any more; and the gun nuts only know one word of the First Amendment, "assemble" and two words of the Second, "bear arms."

The Confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh

I think it was necessary for the good of the country that Justice Kavanaugh be confirmed. It was necessary not because he is the only person fit for the seat on the Court, or even necessarily the best available. It was necessary in order to defeat the opposition.

Those who opposed him did so because they were afraid of what positions he would take on certain cases that may come before the Court. In my opinion, it is wrong for the Senate to try to tip the scales of justice, to assure a certain outcome of a case yet to be litigated. Their job is to see to it that the nominee is qualified to serve on the Court. In that regard, before the hearings began, the American Bar Association gave him their highest rating.

It is true that both parties have recently opposed nominees on the grounds of overall philosophy — originalist or expansionist — but focusing on specific issues as a basis for opposing a nomination violates our constitutional separation of powers. It is senators attempting to decide cases. Yet that is what has happened here, as well as in some earlier hearings.


Senator Ben Sasse gave an insightful speech on how the nomination process has become so politicized. He sees it as stemming in considerable measure from the Court becoming politicized, which in turn is the result of Congress's passing laws that are unclear. Whether better legislative practice is the solution, it is clear that there are cases in which legislatures have declined to pass legislation some people wanted, and people brought a case claiming that the Constitution compelled the result they desired, and the Court agreed — e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage. This in turn, creates a situation where one side in the debate hopes that the Court will reverse its decision and the other side fears reversal. There can also be questions —e.g., legislative apportionment — where one side hopes for a change in law by judicial means and the other opposes it.

When Senators come to see it as their right to determine the outcome of cases they consider important, they also tend to see it as legitimate to use all tactics at their disposal to defeat nominees they consider a threat. Interest groups who agree with them also use all tactics at their disposal. This includes distortion of the nominee's record, personal vilification based on those distortions, and apocalyptic speculation about the consequences of the nominee's being confirmed.. (Mischaracterization of decisions was Kennedy's standard tactic against Bork.) Having misrepresented the nominee, they then find it easy to incite campaigns — letter-writing, e-mails, telephone calls, angry demonstrations, face-to-face physical intimidation, screaming from the Senate Gallery.


And so it happened that Democrats and interest groups were opposing the nominee before he had been selected. No nominee would be acceptable to them, regardless of qualifications, and they used any weapon that came to hand. Finally when it was clear that their tactics were not working, someone betrayed Dr. Ford and made her their weapon (seemingly) of last resort. If Dr. Ford's allegation could have been substantiated, Senators would have needed to decide whether an attempted rape by a high schooler countervailed an adult record of distinguished public service. But, as it was, there was no substantiation beyond Dr. Ford's own testimony, and in the estimation of 51 Senators, that was insufficient to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh was unfit to serve on the Court. The argument was raised and continues to be raised, that the confirmation sends the wrong message to women, namely, that their testimony is disregarded. That is clearly false on its face. Dr. Ford's testimony was respectfully heard and considered, to the extent of reopening the FBI investigation. More broadly, this was not a decision about women, it was about one man. To try to make it about all women, or all victims of assault, is a politically motivated misrepresentation of the case

Under those circumstances it would have been wrong to let the tactics of the opposition succeed in this case. It would also be bad because of the encouragement it would give them to continue to use these tactics.

What we ultimately need is for both sides to return to the role of assessing a nominee's qualifications based on the quality of his/her work, not how they hope/fear the nominee will decide cases that may come before the court. For now, it is essential that Republicans continue to control the Senate until Democrats agree to abide by that standard. What about Republicans agreeing to it? I think enough already do for it to be not a problem in the overall scheme of things. I'd suggest that if the nomination of Merrick Garland had been permitted to come to the floor of the Senate, a number of Republicans would have recognized his fitness to serve, and he'd have been confirmed. The only way Mitch McConnell, taking the politicized approach, could prevent confirmation was to keep the nomination from ever coming up.

I want to see originalists on the Court, but if a president nominates someone qualified who holds a different judicial philosophy, I'll say, "Dang!" and move on. I might write an e-mail to my Senators, but I won't demonstrate, sit in, shout, or engage in other disruptive behavior —  even if some organization encourages me to. And I'll continue to try to find qualified candidates for president who promise to appoint originalists to the courts.

Judge Kavanaugh Thought Experiment

Suppose you are a member of the House of Representatives, and someone comes forward making charges against Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer. The charges are of attempted rape when both were in high school. The charges are identical in every respect with those of Dr. Blasey Ford regarding Judge Kavanaugh, and the state of the evidence is the same as that currently known concerning Judge Kavanaugh.

A member of the House brings a resolution of impeachment against Justice Breyer for attempted rape.

Do you consider attempted rape by a high school student an impeachable offense? Do you vote for the articles of impeachment?

Now suppose the House has voted articles of impeachment against Justice Breyer on the grounds stated above and you are a Senator trying the case. Suppose further that the evidence is identical to the evidence currently known publicly regarding Judge Kavanaugh. Do you vote to convict him of attempted rape, thus removing him from the Court? Do you vote to acquit him and leave him on the Court? Why do you decide as you do?

If you don't vote to impeach or convict Justice Breyer, do you think that allegations which are insufficient to remove him from the Court are sufficient to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the Court?

Children of Immigrants Separated from Parents

It occurs to me that Fathers Day is a good day to think about this. The Republican Party has often claimed to support family values. The current handling of children of illegal immigrants, like the case of Elián González in 2000, is inconsistent with that claim. The right of parents to raise their children, which implies the right to custody of them, is one of the basic principles concerning families. Here, however, as in the González case, that right is being denied, not for the good of the children or out of some overriding necessity, but for political reasons.

Elián González. Here is a link to a synopsis of the case. After his mother drowned in the attempt to take him by boat from Cuba to the United States, he was placed with relatives in Florida. They resisted his father's request that his son be returned to him. The resistance was not on the grounds that the father was an unfit parent but because they preferred that the boy be in the United States rather than under the Communist regime of Fidel Castro. In other words, the Florida relatives and their sympathizers in the United States, including many Republicans, were  willing to ignore parental rights for political reasons. On the other hand, the fact that refugees from Cuba entered the country illegally was not a problem for any significant number of people of either party.

Trump/Sessions Policy. Senator Susan Collins (R, ME), in a letter (apparently to a constituent), explains the situation as follows:

In May, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice would begin prosecuting individuals who crossed the southern border illegally, which could mean that parents who are apprehended at the border could be separated from their children in some cases.

She goes on to write about the dangers of the voyage from the parent's home to the border and the the apparent belief of the parents that if they can reach the United States they will be allowed to stay. Although she does not explain what that has to do with the new policy or the treatment of the children, it seems consistent with the argument others have advanced that when the policy becomes known, it will discourage others from trying to immigrate this way.

"In May … would begin …" In other words, contrary to Trump's claim that this was necessary because of some "horrible law" enacted by the Democrat, this is a new policy, freely chosen by Jeff Sessions. It is not necessary under current law.

"the southern border" The Constitution requires equal protection of the laws. To have a set of rules for those entering across the southern border which is not applied equally to those entering across the northern border or at any port of entry by sea or air is clearly unequal on its face. The obvious difference between those coming across the southern border and those entering elsewhere is that the former are Hispanic while the others generally are not. In other words, this policy is based on ethnic bigotry.

"parents … could be separated from their children …" The only hint of a rationalization for the deliberate change of policy which produces this result is not that the parents are unfit but that it will send a message to other, unrelated individuals, to discourage them from coming here. As with Elián González, people want to take children from their parents for political purposes.


Comments and Conclusions. Regrettably, it seems that many Republicans — now as then — are, at best, selective in their support of family values or ignorant of what they entail. It seems that an anti-immigrant fervor, which is directed only at Hispanics and Muslims, takes precedence for them. The bigotry of the Administration and their supporters makes them comfortable with using the children as pawns/hostages in their attempt to get funding for the border wall. Those who recognize the rights of children and parents are being pressured to fund the wall as part of a deal to end this unnecessary policy.

It should be noted that one difference between the González case and the current situation is that Elián was with family members, whereas the children now are not being placed with loving and caring relatives. Presumably, in the vast majority of cases there are no such known relatives, so they are being held in custody. This raises the point that if parents and children alike are in custody, it should be possible for them to be together in custody. This is not like the situation which often occurs in other sorts of criminal cases, in which a child  can be placed with other family members when a parent is in custody.

It is true that the United States cannot be expected to allow open borders. We need to have sensible immigration policies and procedures, including better border controls. But that need doesn't mean that anything goes or that the natural rights of parents and children may be disregarded.

What we need now is an immediate reversal of the DOJ decision of last May. Then we need serious immigration reform. Until such reform is enacted, immigration enforcement should be limited to cases of serious criminals, the "bad hombres" Donald Trump pretended to be concerned about. People who have merely violated immigration laws or are convicted of non-violent crimes should be allowed to remain until Congress passes comprehensive legislation; and that legislation should allow those who have already made a peaceable life for themselves here to remain.

Parkland, Florida, School Shootings

The killing of 17 people at the high school in Parkland on February 14 has led to renewed calls for various forms of gun control, including measures to prevent those with mental health problems that make them dangerous from having access to firearms. There have also been people who have said, "Let's not politicize the tragedy." Speaker Ryan cautioned against a "knee-jerk reaction" before all the facts and data are known.

My response to Speaker Ryan is, "If you won't do anything about Parkland, there are many previous mass shootings about which all the facts and data are known. Do something about them."

As for politicizing the issue, the question is what is meant by "politicizing." If it means, "seeking solutions through governmental action," there is clearly nothing wrong with doing that. That is part of our rights as citizens. If it means "attempting to win advantage for one political party over another," the real possibility that some people will politicize the matter is not a sufficient reason for others to ignore the problem. Such hyper-partisanship is an increasing problem in our politics*, but rather than yielding to it, we should refuse to let it stop people of good will from seeking to resolve problems.
       
       *The fiasco on February 15 in the Senate on immigration legislation, leaving the Dreamers unprotected is the most recent example.


The proposals I'm aware of include general restrictions on sales of guns — background checks, banning sales at weapons shows, waiting periods, etc. — banning certain types of weapons and accessories frequently used in mass shootings, such as AR-15 rifles and bump stocks; and restrictions on persons, preventing dangerous individuals from owning or purchasing firearms. I think all approaches have merit, and I see no validity in saying only one facet — sales, weapon types, or mental health — is the problem. All contribute to an intolerable situation, and all should be addressed.

Some people will claim that the Second Amendment prevents some of the proposed actions. But the courts have already recognized that the Second Amendment is not absolute. It would be absurd to suggest that individuals have a right to possess nuclear devices or guided missiles. When there are types of arms unknown to the framers of the Amendment, it is at least questionable whether the original intent of the Amendment was to include them. Therefore, it is proper for legislative bodies to consider whether they can be restricted and for courts to decide whether such restrictions are constitutional.


The response of the students themselves gives me real hope that this time something will be different. In addition to grieving the loss of life and honoring those who responded heroically, this time they are angry, and they are articulating that anger powerfully in a clear demand for long overdue action. I believe that this anger-driven demand for action is likely to a effective movement driving politicians to respond with legislation, not just the empty pieties that have followed past acts of this sort.

"Dreamers" Fiasco — Not a Priority to Senators

Looking at the voting on the roll calls in the Senate last Thursday, I must conclude that for the vast majority of Republican Senators, building the "Wall" is more important that letting the "Dreamers" stay in the U.S., while for the vast majority of Democrats, stopping the "Wall" is a higher priority that protecting the "Dreamers."

On the first roll call, all 48 Democrats and "Independents," except Manchin, voted in favor along with four Republicans, Senators Flake, Gardner, Graham, and Murkowski. The remaining Republicans — except John McCain, who was absent due to illness and took no part in any of the voting — all voted against the bill.

On the next roll call, all 40 Republicans present voted in favor and were joined by Democrats Donnelly, Manchin, McCaskill, and Stabenow. The two "Independents" and the remaining 43 Democrats voted against it.

On the third roll call, eight Republicans — Alexander, Collins, Flake, Gardner, Graham, Isakson, Murkowski, and Rounds — joined 44 Democrats and both "Independents" in favor.  Three Democrats joined the remaining 42 Republicans in opposition.


The point I'd make is that if the "Dreamers" aren't taken care of now, they'll be gone as a group forever, while the "Wall" and questions of family reunification and visa lottery can be revisited another time. Yet there are only four Democrats and four Republicans who considered them the top priority. Republicans Alexander, Collins, Isakson, and Rounds were ambiguous, but it could be argued that by supporting the "Dreamers" after their preferred version in the second roll call failed, they made them the top priority. As for the other 45 Democrats and "Independents," and the other 42 voting Republicans — the "Dreamers" just weren't that  important to them. So let's have no criticism of the President or other party from those 87 insufficiently caring Senators.


Among those whose message to the "Dreamers" is, "Drop dead," are my state's two Democrats, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey.

Trump v. Kaepernick

As appalling as Donald Trump's statements about the protests in the NFL during the National Anthem have been, I'm more unhappy at the reactions of many who have commented on social media.

Although Colin Kaepernick spoke about the reason for his protest, many people ignore what he said and insist, contrary to what he said, that the protesters are disrespecting the flag and the country, some going so far as to insist that the protest was exactly the same as burning the flag or spitting on it. They are fabricating a straw man — possibly as a way of justifying their failure to deal with the real issue. At any rate, unlike many protests, this is peaceful, non-disruptive, and about as respectful as a protest can be (no signs, no chants, a genuflection). As I see it, the protest does not disrespect the flag or the country. It calls the country to live up to our professed values and principles, specifically in the way black people are treated.

Some people try to make the issue one of respect for our armed forces, past and present. Again, that is a fabrication. Not only is it clear that the protest isn't directed at our armed forces, but also it is an error to suppose that the National Anthem is specifically about the troops and veterans. It's about the whole country, "the land of the free," which promises "EQUAL protection of the laws" to all because "ALL … are created equal … with [the same] unalienable rights." (Emphasis supplied.) The protest is over a perceived failure of the country to deliver what it promises, and many veterans share the perception of the protestors.

Beyond the misrepresentations of the meaning of the protest, there is a denial of the validity of the protest on its own terms. People say, in effect, "What racism?" either they deny racism outright or they try to deny that it's a big problem. But even if the opponents haven't observed any racism that doesn't mean it isn't there. If they think it's not a major problem for black people — since clearly it wouldn't be one for white people — the question is how they could know that. One has to understand the experience and perceptions of black citizens. What has made the protests ring true to them? Until someone realizes that. one is in no position to dismiss the complaint of injustice. Any attempt to dispute the validity of the protest will fail to convince the protestors. Furthermore, it will not truly address the protest.

Some people do not dismiss the protest itself or misrepresent its meaning but still try to argue that, valid as the protest may be, kneeling during the National Anthem is the wrong way to make the protest. The editors of National Review, for example, said that there were "a dozen ways" in which the protest could appropriately be made. But they didn't offer any. If people want to say, do it differently, they need to give specifics about what form of protest would be acceptable. It seems significant that when one team knelt, not during the anthem, but before it, they were booed as if it were during the anthem, giving rise to the suspicion that for many, it's not about the National Anthem  — that what they really hate is these uppity black people protesting at all.

What Donald Trump has done is to confirm the misrepresentations of the issue in many people's minds, and he has done so in a way which once again shows that he is a boorish demagogue. His praise of NASCAR introduces a real irony with regard to the "disrespect for the flag" spin. It has been pointed out that NASCAR events are notable for people waving Confederate flags in the stands. It's a greater disrespect to the flag, to the armed forces, and to our country to proudly wave the flag of rebellion against the United States than to genuflect quietly during "The Star Spangled Banner."

I've heard it suggested that the protests were fading out of public awareness, and that Trump has blundered into making them a big issue again. Whether they will continue at the level of last weekend is doubtful, but at least many more people have been thinking about the protests than would have if he had kept quiet about them. But since he has misrepresented the issue, it has done nothing to promote the reflection which should be taking place. He did the country no service. Some people think he did this to take people's attention away from his failure to get a repeal of Obamacare or his terrible performance in dealing with North Korea. I doubt he is intelligent enough to plan such a diversion. But I have no doubt he's been paying attention to the protests to the detriment of fulfilling his real responsibilities.

The sooner he leaves office and is replaced by someone sane, intelligent, and competent, the better it will be for all of us, but it will take more than what has happened so far for the votes to be there to remove him from office. Meanwhile there is only a slender hope that he will decide he is tired of being President and resign.

Impeach Now!: Profile in Courage or Quixotic?

According to Aristotle the principal virtue needed in a statesman is prudence.

For a number of years I was vaguely aware of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, But I didn't think much about him until a minister from this area went to Phoenix to participate in a protest against his actions. When she returned, she told the story which is repeated in this article. Hearing her account of the brutality of Joe Arpaio and his deputies is what convinced me that he deserved no support from anybody. There are other, more widely circulated accounts  of what can only be called police brutality at his behest over the years, as well as other sorts of malfeasance in office.

From the time I heard Donald Trump in the debates during the campaigns, I have been convinced that  he is intellectually and psychologically unfit to hold public office. My hope has been that his advisors and subordinates would be able to restrain him from leading us into a disaster. But the danger he represents is so great that I hope he will be removed from office as soon as possible.

There are two possible methods of removal: impeachment by the House for high crimes and misdemeanors and conviction by a 2/3 vote of the Senate; or a declaration by the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet that he is unable to discharge the duties of his office (supported by votes of the House and Senate if the President claims he isn't disabled). Each method has hurdles.

Impeachment requires an impeachable act. In my opinion, the pardon of Joe Arpaio is an abuse of the pardoning power so egregious as to be grounds for impeachment and removal, and I said, "Impeach Now," in several things I posted at the time of the pardon. I realize, however, that a motion to impeach based on the pardon would be unlikely to pass in the House, much less gain sufficient votes for conviction in the Senate.

Similarly, Trump's unfitness for office is not the sort of discrete event, such as a heart attack, which the 25th Amendment was intended to cover — even if the grown-ups around him realize that he's not right in the head. It would take some serious event demonstrating his disconnection from reality for the VP and Cabinet to say, in effect, "He's incompetent now in a way he hasn't been since the day he took office.

Beyond these considerations, there is the question of prudence, as Aristotle reminds us. An officeholder must consider the consequences of his actions. A good officeholder can make accurate judgments about the likely consequences. Thus, a Vice President, Cabinet member, Representative, or Senator needs to act based on the likely result of a possible action. What will happen if s/he acts to declare the President unable to govern or votes to impeach or convict?

Clearly, if the votes aren't there to make the action stick, if the necessary majority does not exist, any action will be futile, and will only expose the person to possible loss of office either by removal from the Cabinet, or by defeat at the hands of angry voters who support the President. We can admire "profiles in courage," but it does no real good to be defeated over a predictable failure.

But what if one could be part of a successful majority and still face defeat at the next election by voters angry at the removal of Donald Trump? The facile answer is that removing him from office is so much more important than the details of future legislation as to make it prudent for the long term good of the country. But I can concede that a moderate might consider being replaced by an alt-right candidate in the primary is worse for the country, especially if it is likely to happen in many districts. Similarly, a Republican could consider that losing his or her Senate seat to a Democrat, with consequences for the confirmation of conservative nominees to the Supreme Court, would be too great a price to pay.

At this point, the best hope is that the Mueller investigations will produce enough evidence to convince Representative and Senators that they must impeach and convict Donald Trump, and that the case will be clear and strong enough that even many who voted for Trump will realize the his removal was justified. Alternatively, and even better, would be an outcome similar to that with Nixon — Trump decides that he can't win, or that the cost of fighting would be too much (such as disclosure of compromising tapes) — and he decides to resign.

I hope that those with the authority to act, especially Republican Senators and Representatives, are discussing privately what might feasibly and prudently be done to bring about Donald Trump's removal from office.

Refugees, Immigrants, and Security Theater

There was no crisis requiring emergency action. As has been pointed out in various places, no refugees from the seven countries subject to the restrictions have engaged in terrorist acts in the United States. So there was minimal risk risk of a potential terrorist slipping in during the time it would have required to issue an Executive Order which was not so unclear and which agencies were prepared to enforce. That minimal risk did not justify the hasty action. (I sarcastically suggest that this Executive Order was such a disaster that we need a 120-day moratorium on executive orders until proper procedures can be devised for their preparation and enforcement, and that all EO's after the moratorium must be subjected to extreme vetting.)

On the other hand terrorist acts have been committed by immigrants from other countries than those targeted and by people born here. The Executive Order does nothing to protect anybody from the sorts of terrorism which have actually occurred. It does nothing to prevent the radicalization of people, native or immigrant, who are already here. If the purpose of the order is to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, it fails because it is not directed against the actual threat.

Terrorist acts get widespread coverage, but we should remember that the casualties from such acts are minuscule in number compared to the deaths from non-terrorist violence, to say nothing of the much greater still number of preventable deaths by accident. Unfortunately, the terrorists have, to a considerable degree, won because we have let them turn our focus from much greater dangers to the almost negligible risk they present. As a nation we seem to be panicked quite unnecessarily.

Some people point to the terrorist actions in Europe and say that we should not allow people to come here and do the same. But Europe does not have the Atlantic Ocean between them and the Middle East. They are much more vulnerable to infiltration. Furthermore, spectacular as those events have been, they are of minor importance compared to all the violence committed by ethnic Europeans; and we must also, when the focus is on immigration, consider the degree to which terrorism is perpetrated by home-grown terrorists.

For years, some people have called the activities of the Transportation Safety Agency "security theater." Their point is that what TSA does has very little effect in actually making travelers safer, but it gives a show which makes most travelers feel safer. It seems to me that the Executive Order, issued in haste without being thought through, practically useless because directed against a virtually nonexistent threat, and unconcerned with larger (though still small) threats, but garnering maximum publicity, must surely be considered a perfect example of security theater. It responds, not to reality, but to vastly disproportionate fears which politicians and media have — perhaps unwittingly at times — cooperated to stoke.

Donald Trump's Inaugural Address

As I watched the inaugural address on TV, there were several points where I thought he was wrong or hyperbolic and some where I thought he was ungracious; but for the most part, I thought he was proposing good objectives. Before I turned of the TV, I listened for a few minutes to the commentators on CNN, and they said that the populism expressed made it the "most radical" inaugural address ever. On reflection, I had the thought that much of it could have been said by Bernie Sanders. Now I have a transcript on another window, and I'll review it a little more closely, without giving a line-by-line analysis.

I liked the part early on about returning power to the people, away from the establishment and the promise that the forgotten men and women would be forgotten no longer. I hope that the corporate CEO's and politicians he's appointing to his cabinet will follow through on his promise. Of course, the people can't exercise their power over the federal government directly except on election day, so it will be up to our politicians and administration officials to put the promise into effect.

Some may quibble with the seriousness or extent of the "carnage" he spoke of, I think that job loss, ineffective education, and urban violence are all real problems. As one who believes strongly in federalism, I don't think that the federal government should be considered responsible for solving every community's crime problems or improve their schools. These are areas which call for the people to exercise their power locally. As for the problems of the "rust belt," I don't know how much of them can be cured by better international trade policies, but it's worth a try.

I agree with him that every country's primary obligation is to its own people. So it makes sense for our needs to be the focus of decision making. Still, I don't want to see us prosper by impoverishing other people, which is why I'm particularly hopeful that the infrastructure program will be effective. I also hope the global economy can grow along with ours.

I was very pleased to hear him say, "We will reinforce old alliances," since his attitude toward NATO has been worrisome.

Given the support he had from the alt-right, I thought it was very important that he said clearly, "[T]hrough our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice," and, returning to the theme later, "A new national pride will stir ourselves, lift our sights, and heal our divisions. It's time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots. We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms. And we all salute the same great American flag."

I'd have appreciated some words about limiting the size and scope of the federal government and protecting freedom of conscience from governmental intrusion, but I'll take what we got and hope for the best.

Are We in Danger of a Fascist Regime?

From time to time the suggestion is made that the answer to my title for this post is, "Yes." I'll admit that at times during the presidential election campaign I was alarmed at some of Donald Trump's rhetoric and the things said and done at his events. Clearly his rhetoric attracted neo-Nazis and white supremacists. There was a certain cult of personality in which he seemed to see himself as the one who could solve all the country's problems, that he needed to be unfettered i doing things his way; and his supporters seemed to agree. There seemed to be tactics of intimidation employed by his supporters without any disapproval on his part. In short, it seemed that he was leading a movement with clear similarities to those of Mussolini and Hitler.

But as time has passed, especially since the election, the resemblances have faded, and my fears have abated. There have been signs that Trump has come to realize that he doesn't have all the answers and can't, and shouldn't try to, rule by decree. He seems to be getting some degree of understanding and acceptance of what it means to be President rather than ruler. His Cabinet choices have not simply been people who have been "movement" loyalists from the outset, and in the first couple of days of confirmation hearings they have demonstrated disagreement with some of his campaign rhetoric.

At this point, therefore, I would answer my question with a definite, "No." No doubt he will take actions and adopt policies with which I disagree, perhaps very strongly, and I'm sure there will be others who oppose even more of what he does. But I see no likelihood at all that a subservient Congress will pass an enabling act that would grant him absolute power. He may very well chafe at the necessity for obtaining legislation to pursue many of his proposals, but he will learn that that's how it is. Like Reagan, he may well be able to appeal to the people and develop enough support to get his proposals enacted, but that isn't dictatorship. Dictatorship is a government which does as it pleases regardless of public support or opposition.

But as I was mulling over the question of whether Trump could be our Hitler, I came to another question: if there is any danger of a neo-Fascist regime in the U.S., whose fault is it? When I was in school I was taught that our system of government contained a threefold bulwark against tyranny expressed in the principles of 1.) limited government, 2.) federalism, and 3.) separation of powers, all three of which were enshrined in our Constitution. Because the President was the head of only one branch of a federal government with limited powers, it was impossible for him to become a tyrant.

Why, then, do people now seriously fear a dictatorship? It is because all three principles underlying our Constitution have been lost sight of. Americans in general look primarily to government to solve whatever problems we face, and they see no problem which is outside the purview of the federal government to solve. In other words, the federal government is regarded as omnicompetent. If there is no area in which the federal government cannot take action, then there is nothing to prevent tyranny except the separation of powers. Unfortunately, we live in an era of hyperpartisanship, and there is a widespread acceptance of the idea that the President runs things, and resistance to what he wants is obstructionism. It is this state of affairs which makes it even slightly plausible for people to imagine an American dictator.

I come again to the question: "Whose fault is it that we've reached this point?" Since at least my college days, going back more than 55 years, I've been a conservative. I've said that matters such as public education, relief of poverty, prosecution of crimes such as murder and robbery, construction of housing, medical practice, drug policy, consumer protection, and marriage laws are no business of the federal government. When conservatives complain about any federal action as being outside the constitutionally limited powers of the federal government, the usual liberal response is that the matter in question is just too important to leave to the States or that we need uniformity. But most people seem to accept without question that the federal government can do whatever it decides to do (apart from taking away their guns).

How did we get from 1787 to here? The Civil War discredited the idea of States' Rights, which, properly understood, is merely a corollary of federalism. The sense of being a citizen, and not merely a resident, of Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania, or Ohio as a significant part of one's identity faded away. It may be a matter of cultural pride and awareness, but not of real political significance. (This is why people can glibly call for the abolition of the electoral college.) Then came the Great Depression which brought acceptance of the idea that if a problem was big enough, the federal government was responsible for solving it. And recently, it seems that most people accept, unthinkingly, that there is almost no zone of personal freedom which the government cannot intrude on "for our own good." We may not smoke in public buildings, even in public housing which we occupy, nor, in various jurisdictions, in outdoor public spaces. We may not purchase various foodstuffs. We may not use various recreational drugs. We must fasten our seatbelts. We must wear helmets when riding motorcycles and bicycles.

There is more that could be said to flesh out my theses and to nuance my broad assertions, but I think it's fair to say that if there is any real danger of dictatorship in the United States, it's the fault of the liberals who see no limits to federal power and care about separation of powers only when a Republican is in the White House.

The Presidency-Elect of Donald Trump, So Far (Days 1 & 2)

I suppose he isn't officially President-elect until the electors elect him, but that's a foregone conclusion. Anyway, here are some thoughts I've been having since I woke up Wednesday morning.

I still think he's unfit for office for all the reasons I've said, and maybe more. But there are some areas of expected action where it's better to have him as President. The one I immediately think of is nominations to the Supreme Court. It has seemed to me for decades that many of the Justices of the Supreme Court have been reading their own personal preferences into the Constitution and creating "rights" which the framers never intended. This goes back at least to Roe v Wade. With the expected vacancies being filled by Trump nominees, we can hope for this judicial tyranny to stop, and even to have some of the willful decisions reversed.

More generally, we can hope to see greater recognition of religious freedom than a Clinton administration would have given and maybe even a curtailment of the scope of the federal government consonant with the 10th Amendment, although limited government as such wasn't one of Trumps talking points.

Trump's seeming willingness to ignore our NATO obligations, particularly toward the Baltic States, has me worried that Putin would see them as available for the taking. But it could conceivably happen that Trump's friendly attitude toward the Russian dictator could end up making him feel more secure and therefore less inclined to grab more territory. This depends, of course, on whether his annexation of Crimea and attempted takeover of Ukraine are motivated by expansionism or insecurity, and which motives would apply to the Baltics.

On Thursday we've seen some hopeful signs. He assured Korea that under his presidency, the U.s. will continue to defend them. Maybe he'll rethink out Nato obligations as well. His extended meeting with Obama and the kind words afterwards suggest that maybe he realizes that there's more to being president that he had thought — although we have to bear in mind that it is normal procedure for him to say whatever he thinks people want to hear, with necessarily meaning it. And there was a recent headline stating that the mention of banning Muslims from entering the country has disappeared from his website. Another story states that he now says that he will deport illegal aliens who have committed crimes, not all, as he had previously promised.

I suppose we can see it as a function of his being totally unprincipled that he has no problem changing his positions. Nevertheless, it does seem that he is making changes in the direction of more sensible policies and actions. So I see some basis for hope that in practice, he won't be as bad as I feared. I think it all comes down to his having good advisers and actually listening to them. One in particular on whom I pin a lot of hope is Newt Gingrich. He's a true conservative, devoted to governing by constitutional principles, and I think if Trump listens to him, we will not see Trump acting as a dictator rather than a President.

Ultimately what matters is what he does in office, not what he said during the campaign. We'll have to wait and see.

Another Problem with Donald Trump, Pt 2.

As for Vladimir Putin, here’s what Trump says.

From The Guardian, July 30, 2015: … He admitted that he had no idea what characteristics he shared with Putin, but the Russians loved him. “I think I would probably get along very well with Russia. I think I would probably get along very well with Putin. I think I would probably get along very well with the people of China.” …

From the Atlantic, December 18, 2015: “It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.

I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect.”

From Washington Post.com, December 29, 2015: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump defended Russian President Vladimir Putin against accusations that he has assassinated political adversaries and journalists, responding to criticism from his rivals over his embrace of praise from the Russian leader.

"Nobody has proven that he's killed anyone. ... He's always denied it. It's never been proven that he's killed anybody,” Trump said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday. “You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, at least in our country. It has not been proven that he's killed reporters."
On Thursday, Putin praised Trump during a wide-ranging news conference, calling him “talented without doubt" and "brilliant." Trump has embraced the remarks, drawing fire from critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who facetiously called the alliance “a match made in heaven.” Trump welcomed Putin's praise, citing it as proof that a Trump administration would be able to work well with the Russians.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, at a campaign event in Iowa, continued to tout praise from Russia's Vladimir Putin saying, "Wouldn't it be nice if ... Russia and us could knock out an enemy together?" (Reuters)
“If he has killed reporters, I think that's terrible. But this isn't like somebody that's stood with a gun and he's, you know, taken the blame or he's admitted that he's killed. He's always denied it,” Trump added.

Given all of this, it is hardly surprising to read in the Wall Street Journal of May 13, “One proposal that has garnered positive Russian attention is Mr. Trump’s suggestion that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization focus on combating terrorism instead of deterring Russian aggression. That alarms officials in Ukraine and the Baltics, former Soviet states that fear they could become Mr. Putin’s next targets following Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian region of Crimea in early 2014.”

It does not seem to occur to Mr. Trump that there can be benefits to the United States other than monetary ones from our alliances, nor does it seem to occur to him that other countries aren’t as well fixed to provide for their defense, nor does it seem to occur to him that small countries certainly cannot maintain or pay for military forces strong enough to defeat aggression from large countries, nor does it seem to occur to him that keeping our word in the form of our treaty obligations to our allies is both legally and morally required.

While NATO was established to defend against a threat that does not now exist, namely expansionist international Communism, Russian expansionism is a new threat, taken seriously enough by RAND for them to undertake their study. Even if Putin would be content to stop at hegemony over the territory of the former Warsaw Pact, there is no justification for is expansion into any of those now independent nations of Europe (or Asia, for that matter). It seems probable that Donald Trump would see no financial benefit, and hence no value, in protecting the Baltics from a Russian takeover. If he could get an agreement from Putin to destroy ISIS, he’d probably think it was a good deal for the U.S. to sacrifice the Baltic States to get that agreement. The risk is too great. We must not elect Donald Trump.

Another Problem with Donald Trump, Pt 1.

It seems to me that If Donald Trump becomes President, the Baltic States will be at high risk of being wholly or partially overrun by Russian armed forces and incorporated into Russia. I was led to think about this as I reflected on seeing Congressman Seth Moulton at our Memorial Day services at Abbot Hall, since I had recently corresponded with his office about a recent study by the RAND Corporation — http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1253.html — which found that NATO, as its forces are currently deployed, cannot successfully defend the territory of those states from a Russian invasion. The study further found “that a force of about seven brigades, including three heavy armored brigades — adequately supported by airpower, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilities — could suffice to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states.” Would Donald Trump support such a deployment? Given his attitudes toward NATO and toward Vladimir Putin, I don’t think so.

First, here are some reports of recent statements by Trump regarding NATO.
From Reuters, March 21: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said the United States should decrease the amount it spends on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

"We are paying disproportionately. It's too much and frankly it's a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea," Trump said in an interview on CNN.

"We have to reconsider. Keep NATO, but maybe we have to pay a lot less toward NATO itself," he said.

From Fortune, March 22: Donald Trump added another twist to his already unconventional campaign for the presidency on Monday: he became the first mainstream candidate to ever suggest that the United States withdraw from NATO. His rationale? It costs the U.S. too much money.

In an interview with The Washington Post, the Republican frontrunner chided the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO for its expense. He said the U.S. might need to reduce its involvement in NATO in coming years, a move that would flout Washington’s long-standing support for the 28-member military alliance. “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” Trump said. “NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”

... He said the United States should not be focused on nation-building overseas; money should be spent domestically instead. “I just think we have to rebuild our country,” he said.

Later on CNN, Trump clarified that he didn’t necessarily want to shrink the U.S.’s role in NATO; he just wanted the nation to pay less.

From CNN, March 22: Donald Trump said the U.S. should rethink its involvement in NATO because the defense alliance costs too much money.
In remarks to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Trump said the U.S. pays a disproportionate amount to NATO to ensure the security of allies.

"Frankly, they have to put up more money," he said. "We are paying disproportionately. It's too much, and frankly it's a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea."
For instance, Trump said Washington was "taking care" of Ukraine and that other European nations were not doing enough to support the Kiev government that has been locked in a long showdown with Moscow. ...

Later in the interview, Trump qualified his remarks saying that the U.S. should not "decrease its role" in NATO but should decrease its spending.

Here’s analysis on March 24 in Business Insder: Geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer said Thursday that Donald Trump's skepticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would give the Kremlin more breathing room on the world stage.

"That's certainly a reason Putin decided to endorse Trump — he understands that US allies will be supported less in a potential Trump administration, giving the Kremlin more room to maneuver," Bremmer, who is president of the Eurasia Group, told Business Insider in an email.

Earlier in the day, Trump criticized NATO, the world's most powerful military alliance, as "obsolete."

"It is time to renegotiate, and the time is now!" the Republican presidential frontrunner tweeted.

Trump argued that NATO, which was formed in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union and nationalist militarism in Europe, should focus more on terrorism. The terrorist group ISIS claimed responsibility for Tuesday's attacks in Brussels, where NATO is based, that killed more than 30 people.  ...

Considering NATO's tensions with Russia, Trump's suggestion that the US might back away from this alliance could be seen as a coup for the Kremlin.

Putin has spoken highly of Trump. And Trump has defended Putin when the US media asks about the Russian government's alleged assassinations of its political enemies.

This is a change in tone from American politicians who have criticized Russia or emphasized the need to keep the Kremlin in check. ...

Trump's comments are also consistent with his campaign message of negotiating better "deals" for Americans.

"The strongest consistent piece of Trump's policy platform isn't to Make America Great Again," Bremmer said.

He continued:

It's America First. Blaming outsiders for America's woes. Mexicans are coming to rape our women. Chinese and Japanese are robbing us blind. Muslim refugees want to come here and blow us up. And the Europeans are free riding on American defense.

Finally, from ft.com, April 3: Donald Trump has stepped up his attack on Nato, saying he would force member nations to leave the transatlantic security organisation unless they contributed more money to what he said was an “obsolete” defence alliance.
The Republican presidential contender has been lambasting Nato since he told the Washington Post recently that he would downgrade the US role in the 28-member alliance, which has formed the cornerstone of the US-European defence relationship for decades.
Speaking in Wisconsin ahead of the state's primary on Tuesday, he went further by saying that Nato’s demise would not be a serious problem.
“Its possible that we're going to have to let Nato go,” Mr Trump told supporters in Eau Claire. “When we’re paying and nobody else is really paying, a couple of other countries are but nobody else is really paying, you feel like the jerk.”
Mr Trump said that, if elected US president, he would contact many of the other 27 Nato members and put pressure on them to make a larger financial contribution or leave.
“I call up all of those countries . . . and say 'fellas you haven't paid for years, give us the money or get the hell out’," Mr Trump said to loud cheers. “I'd say you've gotta pay us or get out. You're out, out, out . . . Maybe Nato will dissolve, and that's OK, not the worst thing in the world.”
Addressing a crowd in Wisconsin on Saturday, Mr Trump asserted that the US was paying 73 per cent towards Nato, but figures from the organisation show that Washington contributes 22 per cent of the direct budget, followed by Germany which pays 15 per cent, and France which puts up 11 per cent. ...

With such an attitude toward the alliance, he seems unlikely to want to use American armed forces and money to defend our allies.

I'll conclude in my next post with material about his attitude toward Vladimir Putin, and my own conclusion.

Trump — Yikes!

Now that it seems almost certain that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for President, I'm very dismayed.

1.) I still don't think he's fit to be President. He's ignorant about major issues facing the country. He's ignorant of the Constitution and dismissive of its requirements. He envisions himself as a dictator, not a president. He's self-absorbed. He's unprincipled. He's a bigot and a sexist.

2.) His candidacy at the top of the ticket will be used, unfairly, by the Democrats to tar Republican candidates for other offices. This could lead to the defeat of candidates for Senator and Congressman, which in turn could cause the GOP to lose our majority in the Senate and maybe even in the House.

3.) His highly probable defeat means not only that Democrats will control the executive branch of the federal government, but that the Democratic president will nominate Supreme Court justices.


Thus, Trump's candidacy appears to be a disaster for the GOP and the United States, whether he wins or loses.

Meals Away from Home; Snow

The past weekend had a confluence of meals eaten away from home.

I have posted a number of times about having dinner in Boston before a Harvard Musical Association social evening and chamber music concert (scroll down past the bloglist to labels and check out waiter, Seth, or restaurant for at least some of them). I've been going there for years and "everybody knows my name." The first time I was there Seth gave perfect service, so it became my regular spot. When Seth shifted to bartending, Wendy became my favorite. Some people think waiters should be completely impersonal in dealing with the patrons, but I don't agree. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I'm usually alone, but I like it when a waiter has a friendly demeanor, expresses an interest in the book I'm reading, or otherwise makes our dealings somewhat personal. Of course, it can be overdone and become unprofessional or inappropriate, and larger parties don't need it, but for one or two people, it can enhance the dinner, in my opinion.

One of the members of the Race Committee at the yacht club has been organizing monthly dinners for a group of committee members for several years, and I started joining the group a couple of years ago. In the winter, when the yacht club is closed, we go to one of several nearby clubs which is open and which lets members of our club charge meals to our own club accounts.

It happened that Friday was an evening for an HMA concert, so I went to Scollay Square. To my surprise, Wendy was there, and we enjoyed "catching up." I had finished my "restaurant book," David and Goliath, by Malcolm Gladwell — a pretty good book, IMO — and haven't yet chosen another, so I decided to bring my Kindle and read something on it. When I opened the cover, I got a low battery graphic and could go no farther, so I ended up working newspaper puzzles I had brought along to do in the subway. At the end of dinner, I explained this to Wendy, and she was happy to have the explanation because when I arrived, she told a new waitress, "That's Mr. [Naturgesetz.] He comes here on Friday nights when he's going to a concert, and he brings a book to read. So she was able to explain the aberration to the other waitress.

Saturday evening was our yacht club group's monthly dinner, this time at a nearby country club. The food was okay, although my veal schnitzel was a bit tough. I didn't finish it, and took home the leftovers, which made a hearty lunch on Monday. The guy to my left and I eventually started talking about politics. Fortunately we were in agreement that we didn't want Trump to be nominated and that the reason so many Republicans are in revolt against the party leadership is that they've been led to believe that they can have everything they want if they elect the candidates they like. So they have no understanding of politics as the art of the possible and see all compromise as a betrayal. We'd both prefer Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or Marco Rubio.

My cousin from Iowa is here visiting his 96 year old mother. She was in a very bad auto accident (rear-ended as a passenger) and spent a couple of months in medical facilities. She's back in her own home where she gets by with the help of a good friend. My brother and I had lunch with the aunt and cousin on Sunday in a popular local restaurant: a pleasant family gathering.


Sunday night it snowed and I took a few pictures of snow on the tree branches, snow on the house across the street, and snow on the rhododendrons. Regrettably, when I try to add them to this post, they don't show up in the photo app, even though they are there when I open the app independently. It's a puzzlement. If I ever figure out how to get at them to bring here, I'll post some .

Playing the Trump Card: The Candidacy

If the current state of politics in the U.S. facilitates a candidacy like Donald Trump’s, that does not explain his popularity. It may be worth noting that although he leads in most polls at this time, he is not the first choice of a majority, and it is possible that he is not the second, third, or fourth choice of enough for him to actually get the Republican nomination. Still, at this point it seems entirely possible that he will be nominated. So why is he as popular as he is?

I think the answer is desperation. For decades the federal government has imposed rules and policies which were against the will of a large portion, in many cases a majority, of the American people — from abortion on demand to same sex marriage (with small business owners being persecuted by vindictive and intolerant same sex couples). Small businesses and local governments chafe under the requirements of the federal bureaucracy. The federal government seeks to control local education. Fishermen are put out of business. The provision of health care has been federalized. It seems that the constitutional principles of limited government and enumerated powers are completely disregarded. Various segments of society have various complaints. The “wars” on drugs and crime have visibly failed. Meanwhile, in areas which are truly its responsibility, such as immigration policy, properly funding Social Security, and foreign policy, the federal government cannot or does not act effectively.

For decades, Republicans have nominated mostly center-right (“moderate”) candidates for President. Whether they won or lost, whether Republicans controlled any houses of Congress, the federal juggernaut rolled on, and the festering problems continued to fester. Meanwhile, the mantra of the populist Democrats, that the plutocrats control the government has begun to ring true. The result is that large numbers of people are “mad as hell and not going to take it any more.” It is ironic that they are supporting one of the plutocrats, one whose credentials as a Republican — much less a conservative — are highly questionable, but they have given up on government as usual, and he seems the candidate most likely to put an end to government as usual. The issues on which he is most vociferous, immigration and terrorism, are ones where his simplistic positions are just what many Republicans want to hear, and that’s sufficient to attenuate any interest in other areas.

Intransigence and extreme partisanship, it seems to me, have been largely responsible for creating the conditions which make Donald Trump’s candidacy popular with so many. Republicans and Democrats alike have been more interested in wining the next election than anything else. They have demonized presidents of the other party; they have routinely refused to seek consensus, preferring to try to make the other party appear extreme. In other words, his candidacy is the result of the actions of those in power. Paradoxically, the Tea Partiers are opposed to compromise and accuse other Republicans of being RINO’s, but if the partisan gridlock had been broken and compromise reached on a number of real problems, the Tea Party might not have been as popular, and Trump might not have emerged as their favorite.. Goldwater and Reagan were nominated because a majority of the party didn’t want “more of the same.” Trump’s supporters are similarly unwilling to have more of the same in Washington.

Will it be possible to stop Donald Trump? If Republicans who support other candidates don’t regard him as their second or third choice; if other candidates don’t drop out too soon; if Trump supporters begin to realize that his rhetoric is empty and simplistic, maybe he’ll be stopped. But if several second-tier candidates drop out and a high percentage of their followers go to Trump, there could be a bandwagon effect. Let’s hope his supporters become disillusioned before he swamps his opposition and becomes inevitable.

Playing the Trump Card: The State of Politics in the U.S.A.

I recall two landslide losses by presidential candidates: Barry Goldwater’s loss to Lyndon Johnson, and George McGovern’s loss to Richard Nixon. In both cases, the loser in the general election had ridden a wave of grassroots support to win his party’s nomination over an “Establishment” candidate. While we don’t know if Rockefeller could have beat Johnson, or Humphrey beat Nixon, the result almost certainly would have been much closer.

Robert Reich, who was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration, has written a fairly perceptive piece http://www.salon.com/2015/11/18/robert_reich_america_might_really_elect_a_crackpot_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow on the possibility of Donald Trump’s becoming the Republican nominee in 2016. He points out that party organizations now have little say in who gets nominated and that the media no longer enjoy the respect which once made them effective when they pointed out the flaws and falsehoods of candidates. He notes, “A growing number of Americans have become convinced the entire system is rigged – including the major parties, the media, and anyone honored by the establishment.” The result is that “now it’s just the candidates and the public, without anything in between.” There is no need to advance reasoned, thoughtful proposals. Demagogic sound bites seem to be enough to get the publicity that will translate into votes from the like-minded.

None of this happened overnight. It has developed slowly over decades.

At one time there was more variety in the ways convention delegates were selected. Some states had primaries, which might or might not bind delegates to vote for the voter-preferred candidate. Others had state conventions to select national convention delegates. Those who attended the conventions were often the self-nominated local party committee members. The process wasn’t always winner-take-all: states might send delegations that were divided among the candidates they favored. Thus the system gave party officials a considerable amount of power over the result.

Primaries are now much more widespread as a result, it seems to me, of a movement, largely supported by the left wing, for what they conceived as greater democracy. Ironically, it is the party officials who are more concerned with winning elections than ideological purity — whereas ordinary voters tend to care more about a candidate’s ideology than his electability — and in that way, the party officials actually promote the democracy of offering candidates with the broadest possible appeal to the electorate as a whole.

Another change has been the way the public understands the campaigns and the conventions. When I was a boy, it was clearly understood that the national conventions were where the party’s nominee would be chosen and that the purpose of the preceding campaigns was to amass as many convention delegates as possible. But, except when the party had an incumbent president who was running for reelection, there was no expectation that any candidate would arrive at the convention with enough delegates to secure the nomination. There would be negotiations in “smoke-filled rooms” as campaign managers attempted to gain the support of enough other candidates to win the nomination. Now, the clear expectation is that well before the convention happens one candidate will have the votes necessary to be nominated. This shift has been promoted by the media’s focus on polling results and corresponding neglect of delegate counts. The result is that having a lead in the polls is seen as a sign of the inevitability of a candidate’s nomination. There is also a certain “bandwagon effect,” with people abandoning possible “kingmakers,” in order to go with a winner. Nowadays candidates tend drop out even if there is still a possibility that they could be part of a coalition that could stop a front-runner.

The media’s loss of influence is much less complex. There is a difference between honest reporting on a candidate’s positions and “attack journalism.” It seems that with Watergate, the media’s understanding of their job went from factual reporting to bringing down the “bad guys” by finding and printing whatever negative things they could find about those “bad guys.” As it became increasingly clear to the public that the media were taking sides, of course they lost the respect they had when they were thought to be disinterested reporters, presenting facts with no attempt to slant the reporting.

What this all adds up to, as I see it, is that changing mechanisms for selecting convention delegates and a changing media approach to journalism — both of which I’d guess Secretary Reich liked — have, along with changing public attitudes toward the process (fostered by the media), led to the situation we now have where Donald Trump, because he leads in the polls, is considered a likely nominee for President. As I’ve noted, insurgencies have succeeded before, generally with unfortunate results for the party in question, but it seems easier to mount one now.

One final note: the “Tea Party” wing of the Republican Party regularly excoriates more moderate Republicans and those who are willing to make compromises to get desirable legislation as RINO’s: Republicans In Name Only. In doing so they falsely claim that only their ideology exists within the Republican Party, and they ignore the fact that the purpose of parties is to win elections, not to be ideologically pure. To win elections, it is often necessary to create broad coalitions of people who are not like-minded on all issues. To place ideological purity ahead of electoral success is truly to be a RINO, so it is these rule-or-ruin Tea Partiers, not the ones they accuse, who deserve the label.

Still to come: some thoughts on why Donald Trump’s candidacy has gained so much support, despite his lack of the normal qualifications for the presidency.