Month: November 2019

It’s November of 2019.  In exactly one year, the citizens of the United States will be going to the polls. The will choose a President, the entire House of Representatives, and one third of the Senate.  They will have a choice of either continuing “Trumpism” or putting an end to the radical regression that his “reign” represents. 

Watch the Process

We aren’t the only ones making that choice.   The narrow Brexit victory of 2016 in the United Kingdom predicted the rise of Trump in the United States.  The voters of the UK will be returning to the polls this December, trying one more time to untie the political Gordian knot that Brexit has created.  It will be instructive not only in its outcome, but in how external forces impact the voting.

Cambridge Analytica, a prime force in the original Brexit verdict is no longer around; but the voter identification and persuasion techniques they pioneered are still available to others.  And while voters are more aware now of the impact of State actors like Russian Intelligence, than they were in 2016; it’s likely the Russians will still try to influence the UK’s choice.

At stake, both in the UK and the US, is our faith in the fundamental security of our election process.  Regardless of the outcome, these tests will determine whether we believe in Democracy or not.  American national security expert Malcolm Nance warns, “…This may be the last free and fair election in America.”  If we lose faith in the veracity of the outcome, we will have no motivation to participate.  

Endless Campaigns

Voter turnout in the United Kingdom averages over 70% (Research Briefings.)   The US turnout is dramatically lower, with 56% voting in the 2016 election (Pew.)  Should citizens come to believe that their votes are manipulated or not counted; then even fewer will vote, making it even easier to alter the outcome.

So in the next weeks and months, there’s a lot at stake in the US and the UK.

By the way, the UK at least knows how to “rip the bandage off.”  Their election campaign is six weeks long.  Here in the US, we have already been debating and campaigning, narrowing candidates for the President since last winter.  And we have fifty-two weeks to go.  It will be tough to get anything else accomplished: we may be paralyzed by the preparations to make a decision.

We are already mired in that indecision.  As the Democrat controlled House of Representatives investigates impeachment, the Republican Senate is contemplating whether it’s “proper” to hold a trial on the President’s actions in an election year.

Avoiding Decisions

There is existing precedent for this.  Mitch McConnell, the Republican Majority Leader of the Senate, determined in 2016 that the Senate could not consider a Supreme Court appointment during an election cycle.  McConnell ignored Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice for the open seat on the Court.  He instead successfully gambled on a Trump victory in the election, and gained the opportunity to fill the vacancy with Neil Gorsuch instead.

Republican are already making their “case” for not following through on an impeachment trial, or worse, issuing a “summary judgment” to avoid a decision.  It’s easy to imagine them arguing that, while the President’s behavior is egregious, it doesn’t rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  They may hide behind the “fig leaf” of protecting the “decision of the people,” pass the buck, and prolong the indecision until November of 2020.

Trump is not Trumpism

Even the Senate removing Donald Trump from office wouldn’t completely alter the arc of US politics.  Trump is a force unto himself, but his ideology is entrenched into a significant portion of the American political body.  We already can see others maneuvering to inherit his political legacy, Lindsey Graham and Mike Pence to name two.

So even in the unlikely even that the President is removed from office, it won’t mean “the end” of anything.  It still requires an election to determine the course of America.  

It’s all in the year ahead.

Quid Pro Quo

President Trump demanded that the Ukrainian Government investigate Joe Biden.  He had “an offer they couldn’t refuse;” either start a public inquiry into Biden, or not receive the military aid they desperately needed to fight Russia.  

And Trump has done this before.  On the White House lawn he asked China to investigate Biden.  This deal was less obvious, but the US was literally sitting at the negotiating table with China at that moment.  And of course, there is the famous line:  “Russia, if you’re listening, find Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 emails…” Russian military intelligence began attacking Clinton’s servers almost immediately.

So President Trump has asked foreign nations to help against his political opponents quite often.  This isn’t a “question;” he’s said it “in the public square.” It is fact. But he’s not the first President to try to manipulate other nations for domestic political gain.  He, in true Trumpian fashion, just takes it “to the max” and does it out in the open. 

There are at least two other times when Presidential candidates offered some kind of deal, a “quid pro quo” to a foreign power.  Both actions are still shrouded in history; as much rumor and legend as fact.  But perhaps more importantly, they were done by two Presidents that Donald Trump respects as role models:  Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

1968 Election

The year 1968 was one of the most divisive times in American history.  There was a nexus of movements:  the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, and the “hippie” movement all came to a head.  It was the year of assassinations; both Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were killed in the spring.   It was a year of protest, riot, and demands for change.

Politically Democrats were split. It was the party of war, with President Johnson orchestrating. And it was also the party of dissent, with Eugene McCarthy and later Bobby Kennedy running for the Democratic Presidential nomination on anti-war platforms.  McCarthy was so effective that Johnson dropped out of the race, his spot taken by his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey.  

This left the Party fractured, with McCarthy not having enough backing from the “old line” party members, and Kennedy gone.  Humphrey won the nomination, but it was a tarnished victory.  Rioting tore the Chicago Convention apart, and the heavy-handed tactics of Chicago’s Mayor Daley made any kind of unification impossible.

The Republicans nominated Richard Nixon, who came back from defeats in 1960 and 1962 .   Nixon touted his secret “peace plan” to end the war, but absolutely didn’t align himself with anti-war forces.

Secret Plan

Humphrey was tied to Johnson and the war.  Johnson was attempting to negotiate a ceasefire with the North Vietnamese in Paris, an “October Surprise” that could tip the balance in the highly divided election. 

Nixon was desperately afraid that Johnson would end the war before the election, assuring Humphrey’s victory.  He turned to a shadowy figure in American history, Anna Chenault, the widow of World War II general Claire Chenault and a powerful figure in the Republican Party.  Nixon tasked Chenault with making sure that the South Vietnamese government, our allies, refused to cooperate with President Johnson in the Paris negotiations (Politico.) 

The “quid pro quo:” if the South Vietnamese government tanked the peace conference, Nixon would get South Vietnam a “better deal” when he became President.

Johnson knew about it before the election.  He called Republican leaders, and Nixon himself, demanding that they stop. Of course they denied any knowledge of Chenault’s actions.  But Johnson didn’t reveal any of this to the public, and on Election Day, Nixon eked out victory over Humphrey by .7% of the popular vote.

When Nixon took office, he “doubled down” on US involvement in the War and support of the South Vietnamese government.  It took seven more years for the United States to fully leave Vietnam, and when we did, the South Vietnamese government was totally defeated.  Today Vietnam remains one of the few solidly Communist nations in the world.

A Hostage in the White House

Forty years ago, on November 4^th, 1979, fifty-two Americans were taken hostage in the US Embassy in Tehran, Iran.  The American ally, the Shah of Iran, was overthrown, and Muslim hardliners lead by the Ayatollah Khomeini had control.  The Shah was exiled to the United States; Iran wanted to trade them for the Shah.

President Jimmy Carter struggled to find a way to free the hostages.  It was a year from the 1980 Presidential election and the crisis became the most important issue.  Carter attempted to rescue them, the first use of the new “Delta Force.”  Dust storms and inexperience caused the operation to fail, and the Iranians were left with abandoned helicopters to use as a display of American ineptness.

Early on, Carter promised not to campaign until the hostages were freed, and while he ultimately came out, it was another example of his inability to control the situation.

What Iran Needs

Ronald Reagan, former Governor of California, was the Republican candidate for President in 1980.  The threat of an “October Surprise,” Carter freeing the hostages; was the key to victory.  

Reagan’s actions are still obscured.  In the middle of the campaign summer of 1980, campaign manager William Casey (later appointed director of the CIA) went to Madrid, Spain.  At that time, he supposedly met with Iranian officials, and offered incentives for a “better deal” if they held the hostages until after the election, avoiding a Carter “October Surprise” (LA Times.) 

Reagan won an overwhelming victory over Carter.  The Iranians announced that the hostages would be freed on Reagan’s inauguration day.  Jimmy Carter flew to Germany to meet them.  Not long after, the Reagan administration allowed Israel to sell US made anti-tank weapons to Iran, to use in their ongoing conflict with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Facts and Rumors

We now know that the story of Nixon and Anna Chenault is true.  What Reagan did or didn’t do is still not as clear.  But we can draw some conclusions.  The Trump Presidency clearly is influenced by Nixon’s actions.  Roger Stone, who began his political career as a Nixon “dirty trickster,” has had tremendous political sway over Donald Trump.  

And Reagan legacy is the Trump “touchstone.”   “Making America Great Again” and Trump’s fixation with “Wall” (Trump wants to build one, Reagan wanted one tore down) are intentional echoes of the Reagan Presidency.

Trump is so drawn to the two Presidents, is it really isn’t a surprise that he would follow their example of using foreign intervention to influence American elections?  Creating or avoiding the “October Surprise” is a Republican tradition; Trump is simply bringing it out to the full light of public scrutiny:  ask Hillary Clinton.