Month: June 2019

Choice of the Heart

There are twenty-three candidates running for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination: twenty-three.  That’s a full football team with an extra punter/kicker!! 

Opportunity or Dilemma

Democrats are faced with an opportunity, and a dilemma.  

The opportunity is that there is a wide variety of choices:  young (37) to old (77 – Sanders even older than Biden); black, white, Asian, Pacific Islander; men and women; gay and straight; Governors, Congressmen, Senators, Entrepreneurs, and a self-help book author.  Republicans may see all of them as “lefty’s,” somewhere from moderate to the “S-word” (socialists), but Democratic voters hear a great deal of differences among the proposals offered.

The dilemma:  could Democrats get into the same trap that Republicans fell for in 2016.  With so many candidates, will one gather a large minority vote that ends up dominating the scene.  Donald Trump won 44 primaries or caucuses, but he failed to win a majority of any election count in February or March.  In those first thirty-two elections, Trump only broke over 40% ten times.  It wasn’t until April, when most other candidates dropped out, that Trump actually start “winning” a majority of the votes.

Trump had a solid minority (somewhere around 38%, similar to his approval ratings today) and the rest of the Republican voters split among the other eleven candidates.  Could Democrats be faced with a similar dilemma, and nominate a candidate with a strong but small base (doesn’t that sound like Bernie Sanders)?

Or will Democrats follow a more traditional path, coalescing around four or five candidates who then will battle it out for the nomination?

There are candidates who are uplifting, intelligent, and exciting.  But there is the ongoing question that every Democrat needs to contemplate.  Whatever candidate Democrats choose, that candidate needs to defeat Donald Trump. And that puts the Party in a difficult choice, the choice between the head and the heart.

The Progressives

Pete Buttigieg did a town hall meeting hosted by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Monday night.  Of course, a town hall audience is a friendly one, but in this fragmented Democratic environment, tough questions are asked by the spectators, and even by the host.  Buttigieg handled each question, and questioner, with grace and intelligence. He didn’t avoid any, and didn’t “spin” the answers to another subject either.  He put forth his plans, clearly and eloquently. He is a strong, passionate, progressive Democrat.

“Mayor Pete” is the leader of South Bend, Indiana, a middle sized town best known as the home of the University of Notre Dame.  He is young, only thirty-seven, and he is veteran, having served in Afghanistan. His academic background:  Harvard and Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, is impeccable. He is also gay, married to his husband Chasten.

I have also heard town halls with Kamela Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Kristen Gillibrand.  All of them have tremendous minds, terrific ideas, and articulate their views clearly. They are all from the more Progressive (that’s MY END) part of the Party. All of them and Pete, seem to be prepared to be President; all of them seems ready to lead.  And any of them would be better than Donald Trump.

The Moderates

I’ve also heard Senator Michael Bennett interviewed multiple times, and Governor’s Inslee of Washington and Hickenlooper of Colorado.  Bennett and Hickenlooper are from the more moderate part of the Party, both emphasizing the need to work to reunite the nation.  Inslee has staked his candidacy on environmental concerns, but hasn’t moved from that niche to a more general candidacy.  If the Democratic goal is to reach towards the more moderate Republican voters repelled by Trump, these guys would serve that role well. And any of them would be better than Trump.

The “B’s”

I haven’t mentioned the three “B’s;” Bernie, Beto and Biden.

Bernie Sanders is not my candidate.  I have two main complaints with the Independent Senator from Vermont.  First; while his goals are appealing, I constantly feel that Bernie promises “the moon,” without dealing with the practicalities of how to get it done.  I know that politicians do that, but Bernie seems worse than most.  His answer for achieving his plans:  we need a “revolution” to replace the Congress. It’s quite an idea, but seems “pie in the sky” to me.

My second contention with Bernie is his determination to remain outside the Party, except to use the Party machinery to gain a Presidential nomination.  It wouldn’t alter my view, but I would be a lot more comfortable if Senator Sanders was the Democrat from Vermont.

Beto O’Rourke is young and dynamic.  My problem with Beto is that he speaks oratorically, and often doesn’t answer the questions that are asked.  Beto always gets back to his campaign “line,” and it seems that he doesn’t have clearly articulated plans.  From what I’ve seen so far, Beto O’Rourke is not my candidate either.

But either one of them, would be better than Trump.

And then there is the former Vice President, Joe Biden.  Biden is a traditional Democratic moderate, and brings a world of experience in government to his campaign.  He has the advantage of eight years with President Obama, in what was clearly a strong administrative role (not a “Dan Quayle” Vice Presidency.)  Biden appeals to the middle, and, at least today, looks to be the best bet to defeat Donald Trump.  

And of course, he would be better than Trump.

The Choice

So there is the dilemma. Should Democrats go “with their heads;” and chose a more moderate candidate who can appeal to the middle Republican voter, the suburban “soccer mom” repelled by Trump’s personality and the Republican vendetta against women’s rights.  Biden is the prime example, though Bennett, Hickenlooper, and maybe O’Rourke fit this “safe” model to win the election.

Or do Democrats go “with their hearts;” and choose a nominee that represents the heart of the Party, the progressive (liberal) values that the younger, more active center of the Party believes.  Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg seem to be leading in that category.  That election model will require the Party to reach out to the young progressives to show up on election day, and won’t depend as much on the disenchanted Republican vote.

My heart:  a young progressive from Indiana who could lift the country, bringing it back to the dignity of the Obama years, and heal the wounds left by Trump.  

My head:  if you’re going to the middle, than the middle is Biden. Please Joe, it’s a “big f**kin deal,” don’t screw it up.

The Power of the President

The current President of the United States is claiming more and more “executive” power.  He bragged last week, that he hadn’t even used his “Article II” authorities yet.  He is backed up by an Attorney General who has an extremist legal view of the Constitution, one that says there is little to no check on the actions by our Chief Executive.  

Using “executive” power, those powers delineated in Article II of the US Constitution, is nothing new to the Presidency. The Founding Fathers understood both an executive too strong, and too weak.  The basis of the American Revolution was what the colonists consider an overreach of executive power by the King George III of England.   In the listing of complaints in the Declaration of Independence, the part we don’t quote quite as often as the “…all men are created equal” part, Jefferson is very specific.  

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Jefferson then follows with thirteen separate complaints, all preceded by the word, “He,” referring to the King.

So anti-executive power was one of the foundations of the United Colonies becoming States.  But too little executive power was a flaw the Founding Fathers experienced as well.  The Continental Congress, later codified in the Articles of Confederation, the first organizing document of the United States, specifically provided for there NOT to be a “chief executive.”  Executive decisions were made by committee, each state having a single vote.  It took nine votes of the thirteen to agree.

The Articles of Confederation, a weak federal government by committee, didn’t work effectively.  The leaders of the United States gathered together in Philadelphia five years after its ratification, to try again.  With both examples clearly in front of them: too much executive power, and too little; they wrote the Constitution of the United States.

Specifically, they placed the following powers in the Presidency:

• Commander in Chief of the US military
• Can require the opinions of the leaders of the executive departments about any subject relating to their duties
• May grant reprieves and pardons for offense against the United States
• Make treaties (with advice and consent of the Senate)
• Nominate officers and judges (with advice and consent of the Senate)
• Fill vacancies when the Senate is not in session
• Convene both or either House of Congress on extraordinary occasions
• Faithfully execute the laws.

Those are the actual “Article II” powers that President Trump is warning us about.  The Founding Fathers wrote a document that carefully circumscribed Executive authority.  The vast majority of the “powers” of the Government are granted to the Congress.

But like the Articles of Confederation government, Congress found the need to reach a majority in the House of Representatives (218 out of 435 votes today) and either a majority or two-thirds majority in the Senate (51 or 67 out of 100) so cumbersome, that they had difficulty governing.  They have, over the years, ceded authorities to the Executive Branch in order to get things done.

So when President Trump threatens to raise tariffs on Mexico, Congress has given him that authority. When he threatens to send troops to the Middle East, Congress has given him that power.  When he decides to take money from funds already earmarked for certain projects, and declare an “emergency” and try to spend the money on a border wall, Congress has given him that power as well.  

All of those powers were given in order to make the government function more efficiently. And all of those powers were also given with an “unwritten understanding” of the norms and limits of Presidential actions, “norms and limits” that no longer are accepted by the President, or expected by the American people.

George Washington well understood a limited President.  The one Chief Executive who could have claimed kingship (he was offered the title by his officers in the last days of the Continental Army) he acted carefully to establish the power of the Presidency, and restrict that power as well. His most famous example:  walking away from the Presidency after his second term.

Lincoln had the view that he needed to exercise whatever power was necessary to maintain the Union. He took his power as Commander and Chief and prosecuted the Civil War.  The resurgence of a powerful Congress after the Civil War was a direct reaction to Lincoln’s expansion, even while Lincoln himself became an American deity.

Franklin Roosevelt took much the same view, that existential crisis gave the President almost existential power.  The Great Depression threatened the core structure of America, and World War II threatened the core structure of the world.  Roosevelt not only expanded executive power, but violated Washington’s norm of leaving after two terms.  While American’s placed FDR in high esteem after his death, the Congress and states passed the 22^ndAmendment to the Constitution, restricting the President to two terms.

Richard Nixon had an expansive view of his powers as President.  While we remember the “Watergate” abuses, using the intelligence agencies to cover-up criminal actions, fewer remember the wage and price controls that Nixon imposed on the United States in 1971.  Congress reacted to his expansions (and his criminality) by arranging for him to resign.

George W. Bush was faced with the 9-11 attacks.  His response was an enormous expansion of the intelligence community; including legal opinions allowing the collection of electronic data on almost every American, and the rendition and torture of our “enemies.”  Congress and the Courts have pulled many of those “powers” back.

Lincoln, Roosevelt, Nixon, Bush:  in all of these cases the President took more executive powers, and Congress took them back in reaction.  Today with President Trump, Congress has not reached a consensus to re-balance our governmental structure; yet. 

Like Nixon, Trump has found legal basis for his questionable actions.  He has found an Attorney General who will “investigate the investigators” for him, stifling any questions about his actions.  And like Bush, he has found those who will create a “legal underpinning” for his expansions of power.  

It will ultimately up to Congress to check his excesses.  They could use the Article I Impeachment powers, or they could simply get enough of a majority together to take their powers back.  It will take the will of Congress, and the will of the American people, to get that done.  2020, here we come.

Taking on Jim Jordan

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller does not want to testify in the House of Representatives. He believes he has said everything that needs to be said in his two volume, 438 page report with thousands of footnotes.  It is complete, carefully worded, and legally sound.  What more could the country want?

Democrats want Mueller to tell the story of his investigation in public, because it is such a compelling account of the actions of Russia and of the Trump campaign and Presidency.  Democrats recognize that most Americans can’t or won’t take the time to read the Report, and, as one of commentators, Chuck Rosenberg said, “…if they won’t read the book, they need to see the movie.”  The “movie” would be a televised hearing with Mueller “on the stand,” testifying and answering questions from a Congressional committee.  Even if Mueller constantly referred back to the Report, his presence, and the visual presentation of his results; are the most effective ways for Democrats to tell the story.

Surprisingly, some Republicans, including the White House, seem to want Mueller to testify as well. The President’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani stated:

“If they allow [GOP Reps.] Meadows and Jordan and few of the others there, they’ll eviscerate him more than they did Michael Cohen,” “…it would be emotionally satisfying {to have Mueller testify} and in terms of the politics of it, I would love to have him testify. I think he’s afraid to.”

Jordan, Meadows, and the rest of the Freedom Caucus posse are looking forward to their opportunity to “eviscerate” Robert Mueller?  While former Trump lawyer and convicted felon Michael Cohen was a soft target, even he told a compelling story of Trump’s criminality to the Judiciary Committee.  Jordan and the boys faired so badly against other public targets, like James Comey, Peter Strzok, and even Hillary Clinton; they moved their other hearings behind closed doors.  They controlled and cherry-picked information that was released about Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohrs and Glenn Simpson (of Fusion GPS.)

I don’t think he needs it, but I can give Mr. Mueller some advice on how to take on Jim Jordan.  I have some experience with that exact problem, though in a somewhat different setting.

Jim Jordan may be a whole lot of other things, but here in Ohio he is a high school wrestling legend.  He, and his brothers (and now their offspring) dominated wrestling from St. Paris Graham High School for decades.   Jordan himself was undefeated through three seasons of wrestling, including three state championships, going into his senior year.  Not surprisingly, he was heavily favored to win on a sub-zero night at the finals of the Licking Heights Invitational, against a lesser-known opponent from Watkins Memorial High School named Rob Johnson.

Johnson was a two-time state-placer in his own right, but Jordan was the undefeated clear favorite.  Jordan wrestled with confidence, but Johnson wrestled like a man who had nothing to lose.  It was that reckless abandonment, that willingness to chance all, that led to an enormous upset. Johnson beat Jordan, ending his undefeated high school career.

Jordan went onto to win the state championship in Division II, while Johnson won in Division I.

So, as one of the coaches that helped Johnson that senior year, here’s my advice to Mr. Mueller.

Answer the questions honestly and openly.  Mr. Mueller, you are not a politician, you are a man known as a “straight-shooter.” You know your job as Special Counsel, and your mandate as an investigator.  Don’t let the “posse” lead you into their mythological world of “traitors” and “intelligence coups” created to distract from the very real cooperation with Russia you found in the Trump Campaign.  

You discovered the indiscretions of Strzok, and you removed him.  You took the investigation started by Comey and McCabe, and you continued it (and it may still be going on, for all we know.)  You of all people, know the truth of what happened in the 2016 campaign, and it is your willingness to be open with the American people that will defeat Jordan, Meadows, Goetz and the rest.  

Of all people in American government, we know that the words “reckless abandonment” has never characterized your work.  You are best known for methodical hard work, pushing your staff and yourself to achieve. You turned around the FBI after 9/11, changing it from primarily reactive to pro-active.  But you have the truth, something that the President’s lawyers and the Freedom Caucus have little familiarity with.  

Don’t be afraid to use it. 

Just One More Tax

Dear Mr. President:

I know how proud you are of the tax cut law passed through Congress.  It was one of the big events in your first years as President, and one of the only major pieces of legislation you were able to achieve. That tax cut really didn’t impact many people, unless you were making millions of dollars.  The wealthy and the corporations did great – the rest of us pretty much broke even.

But now you seem bent on raising our costs again and again.  You are engaging in a trade war with China, and Canada, and today you tacked on Mexico.  I know you think that the tariffs you are applying to goods from these countries cost “them” money, but it doesn’t seem to work that way.  You see, while the tax may be collected at the “border,” it’s really not the manufacturers that are paying for the increase.

Chinese, Canadian, and Mexican importers, many of them American companies, aren’t “eating” the cost of your tariffs.  They are doing what you would probably do as a businessman as well; they are pushing the costs onto the consumers.  

So your tax on Chinese goods, and now Mexican imports; isn’t really a tax on those countries – it’s a tax on us.

I know, you want us to “BUY AMERICAN.”  I think that’s a good idea too, supporting American workers, and purchasing goods that are made here in America.  But you see, unless I go to the grocery store and buy fresh food (and even then I have to check) there really isn’t that much made here in America with American parts anymore.  

I’m writing this on a computer, made by a company in Cupertino, California.  But it was manufactured in China (I remember watching its progress on my online order.)  I bought it eight years ago, but to upgrade to a new one, I will have to pay your tax.  It’s the same with my phone, also an Apple product.  Where could I find an “American Made” computer?

And I was looking to buy a “Made in America” washing machine.  I grew up in Dayton, Ohio; just up the road from the Frigidaire plant, so I thought that would be a good one.  But Frigidaire is now owned by a Swedish company, Electrolux, and I don’t know where their products are made.  So I went for a Whirlpool; they must be made in America.  

Well, some are, and some aren’t and some are made in America with parts from other places.  To get a “Made in America” washer, I needed to buy a “Bosch;” a German company that has washer factories in South Carolina and Tennessee.  Now will they get a tariff on them?  They are German, but their stuff is made here.

So you see, Mr. President, it isn’t just about buying American.  That “shipped sailed” a long time ago, along with Frigidaire plant in Dayton.  We are in a world market, where my shoes come from Vietnam, my computer China, and parts for my GMC Yukon from Canada (though it was assembled in Janesville, Wisconsin; near Paul Ryan’s house, I guess that plant closed a few years ago.)  I know you want to “Make America Great Again,” but the world you are trying to go back to doesn’t exist anymore.  

Taxing me, and the rest of the people here in the United States, to punish other countries just doesn’t seem fair.  And it particularly doesn’t seem fair when the tax cut you are so proud of makes rich companies (like Apple and GMC) richer, and doesn’t encourage them to stay in the USA at all (check out the GM Lordstown plant, closing down.)  It seems like they, and the very rich, get all the benefits, and we “regular” folks, get to pay more taxes.

I know you’ve got a lot on your plate.  But I’m getting less on my plate, less because I’m paying more for the everyday goods I need to have.  So it would be nice, if you could figure out a way to punish those other countries, and encourage manufacturing back here in the United States, without punishing me and the rest of the “regular” folks.

Thanks – Marty Dahlman