Andrew Clem blog home

Blog

In which an older and wiser yet terminally earnest former liberal struggles to come to grips with the cynicism, hatred, and paranoia that plague both sides of the American political spectrum. "Can we all get along?"

Politics montage shadow
Information pages:

NOTE: The above Web pages feature chronologies, maps, and other kinds of political information.



Blog roll (partial)

(Former) Regular reads:
Blogs I should read:
Virginia blogs (active):

 

Other political blogs

Other Virginia blogs
Other national blogs
Other regional blogs
On hiatus, etc.

Political Web sites

Political humor


 

Conservation links



 

News links

Newspapers
Radio and TV
News Web sites

 

And I quote:

"The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered."

Edmund Burke, 2nd speech on conciliation with America, Mar. 22, 1775 (Bartlett's 16th ed., p. 331)



Mrs. Powel: "Well, Dr. Franklin, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, if you can keep it."

After Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Sept. 18, 1787. (Bartlett's 16th ed.)


"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other, and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves."

James Madison ("Publius"), The Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787)


"Of the three forms of sovereignty [autocracy, aristocracy, and democracy], democracy, in the truest sense of the word, is necessarily a despotism because it establishes an executive power through which all the citizens may make decisions about (and indeed against) the individual without his consent..."

Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795)


"To act successfully, that is, according to the rules of the political art, is political wisdom. To know with despair that the political act is inevitably evil, and to act nevertheless, is moral courage. To choose among several expedient actions the least evil one is moral judgment. In the combination of political wisdom, moral courage, and moral judgment, man reconciles his political nature with his moral destiny."

Hans Morgenthau, Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (1946), p. 203


"Thus, whenever a concrete threat to peace develops, war is opposed not by a world public opinion but by the public opinions of those nations whose interests are threatened by that war."

Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations 6th ed., rev. by Kenneth Thompson (1985), p. 288


"The texture of international politics remains highly constant, patterns recur, and events repeat themselves endlessly."

Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (1979), p. 66


"Men wiser and more learned than I have discerned in history a plot, a rhythm, a predetermined pattern. These harmonies are concealed from me. I can see only one emergency following upon another as wave follows upon wave, only one great fact with respect to which, since it is unique, there can be no generalizations, only one safe rule for the historian: that he should recognize in the development of human destinies the play of the contingent and the unforeseen."

H. A. L. Fisher, History of Europe (1935), p. vii [Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations (1991), p. 80]


"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favour."

Robert Frost, 'Black Cottage' North of Boston (1914), [Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations (1991), p. 86]


"My thoughts encompass divinity, therefore divinity is. The divinity that my thoughts encompass is associated with the order that arises out of chaos... As we expand our knowledge of this realm, we ... see it in terms of one sublime order that awaits full realization."

Louis J. Halle, Out of Chaos (1977), p. 646


"Here, then, is the complexity, the fascination, and the tragedy of all political life. Politics are made up of two elements -- utopia and reality -- belonging to two different planes which can never meet."

E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939 2nd ed. (1946), p. 93.


"My biggest blunder in life was attempt to seek common ground with Keynesians, based on the naive thought that by putting my ideas in Keynesian language that I would make any dent on the Keynesians."

Milton Friedman, New York Times, July 4, 1999


"War made the state and the state made war."

Charles Tilly, The Formation of National States in Western Europe (1975), p. 42


"Americans like to mock Kuwaitis as rich and pampered and lazy and decadent, which is exactly what the rest of the world says about Americans. Actually, we shouldn't mock Kuwait at all. It represents the hopes and dreams of Americans of all political persuasions. For liberals, it's a generous welfare state with guaranteed employment and a huge government bureaucracy. For conservatives, it's a country with no taxes and plenty of cheap maids who aren't allowed to vote."

Peter Carlson, "Castles in the Sand," Washington Post Magazine Jan. 14, 1996, p. 32-33


"[Bill Clinton's] greatest strength is his insincerity... I've decided Bill Clinton is at his most genuine when he's the most phony... We know he doesn't mean what he says."

Newsweek reporter Howard Fineman, in a speech in Indiana quoted by Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Apr. 27, 1996


"Whatever one thinks of Bill Clinton, his opponents [*] must be thwarted. They are enemies of democracy and of the Constitution that insures its possibility. We long ago lost the luxury of choosing our allies. This is war."
* (referred to elsewhere in this piece as "mad dogs bent on political annihilation")

Eric Alterman, "Democracy Disappears" The Nation, Jan. 11-18, 1998


"There are no enemies in science, professor. Only phenomena to study."

From the movie The Thing, 1951 (a Cold War sci-fi allegory)


Julia Roberts: "Can you prove any of this?"

Mel Gibson: "No... A good conspiracy is unprovable. If you can prove it, someone must have screwed up somewhere along the way."

From the movie Conspiracy Theory


THE 16 WORDS: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Pres. George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 2003


 

February 19, 2017 [LINK / comment]

Trump's first month: worse than expected

I'm one of those who is just too stunned to make a serious attempt at understanding what's going on with this new administration. I would like to think that my fears about President Trump's harsh and aggressive style of leadership were misplaced, but thus far he is governing the same way he campaigned. It validates my frequent warnings in the past about the dangers of the Republican Party flirting with populist politics, but it's probably too late to turn back the clock now.

First week: Seven days of mayhem *

President Trump's inaugural address four Fridays ago left little doubt that he was dead serious about fulfilling his myriad campaign promises. Aside from minor directives, he took the weekend off and then got to business on Monday. By the end of that week, the Democrats were in an uproar.

When Acting Attorney General was fired for having defied the President's executive order, the parallel with the October 1973 "Saturday night massacre" was obvious. But was the parallel a close one?

Trump wasted no time in fulfilling one of his campaign promises, of building a bigger wall with Mexico. To me, that is tragic and will probably have terrible consequences for our relations with that country and with the rest of Latin America for years to come.

U.S. - Mexican border fence in Douglas pan

Panoramic view of the U.S. - Mexican border fence in Douglas, Arizona. Click on the image to see it full size.

Weeks 2 - 4: more mayhem

Things only got worse after that, as Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was forced to resign after it was learned that he was discussing the economic sanctions imposed by then-President Obama in late December. I disagreed with that policy move, but Flynn's actions were inexcusable and downright subversive.

Trump's continued nice words about Vladimir Putin and disparagement of our European allies in NATO are further cause for alarm. He sent Vice President Mike Pence to the security summit in Munich, where he tried to reassure everyone of America's commitment to collective security. I would blame them for feeling uneasy, however.

And finally, Trump's most recent tirade against the press, calling them an "enemy" of the American people, is deeply disturbing. Sen. John McCain was right to call Trump out on that, noting that such words are often the first step in the establishment of a dictatorship.

What a crazy world we live in. I'll be spending the next couple weeks in Latin America, and it will be interesting to get those folks' perspective on what has been happening here in the U.S.A.

* Yes, that is a not-too-subtle reference to a movie from the early 1960s...


January 20, 2017 [LINK / comment]

#45: Donald J. Trump is inaugurated president

Putting to rest fears of some kind of disruption, the inaugural ceremonies for the nation's 45th president, Donald J. Trump, went off without a hitch today. The incoming and outgoing First Families (Obamas and Trumps) and Second Families (Bidens and Pences) assembled at the White House for a trip down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol Building. With all the hard feelings from the 2016 campaign, it must have been extremely tense. Watching on TV it seemed surreal, hard to believe.

Just before noon, Vice President Mike Pence took the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts, and [after] a hymn, it was Trump's turn to recite the oath. It started to rain as soon as President Trump began his inaugural address, which was short (only about 18 minutes) and direct. He used the same plain language that he did in his campaign speeches, and he apparently wrote almost all of it himself. It started off on a good note, with gracious words to former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle, but it quickly returned to his standard populist campaign rhetoric in a very blunt way. The following key excerpts are from the (revamped) whitehouse.gov website.

January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now.

That was obviously aimed at the "middle America" demographic base which carried Trump to electoral victory. He then went through a litany of instances in which other countries allegedly have taken advantage of the U.S., with devastating effects on the middle class in small towns across the Heartland. That set up the main focus of the speech:

From this moment on, it's going to be America First.
Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.
We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.
I will fight for you with every breath in my body -- and I will never, ever let you down.

In sum, his speech was a breathtaking in style and content, a sharp break with tradition. The strongly nationalistic views of the new chief adviser Steve Bannon were on full display, and mainstream Republicans were probably horrified. Trump did not cover every key issue or mention particular problem areas in the world, keeping a sharp focus on his main goals. Those of us who hoped that he might shift gears and become more pragmatic once he actually became president were disappointed. If he succeeds with a economic and trade policy based on "protection" as the organizing principle, they will have to re-write all the economics textbooks, as such an approach has rarely if ever worked in the real modern world. Anything is possible, but some things are more likely than others.

I was also struck by Trump's ambitious promises, such as "... Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth." Really? I had been thinking that Trump was continuing to act unpresidential in the days leading up to his inauguration so as to set extremely low standards for what could be considered a successful term in office. Granted, many of his followers don't take some of his words at face value (as I noted yesterday), but by promising so much, he has made success that much harder for himself.

Peaceful parade, violent protests

The officials then retired to dine in private inside the Capitol, so the inaugural parade didn't start until mid-afternoon, and by the time it ended in the early evening, hardly anyone was left in the bleachers in front of the White House. That was a weird scene. Attendance at the late-afternoon festivities may have been suppressed by the violent street protests taking place about a half mile away.

Anticipating sharp clashes, police had cordoned off a large portion of central D.C., but it didn't stop anarchists from starting a riot along 12th Street NW, just outside the secured zone. It looked and sounded pretty dramatic on TV, but it was contained and over a hundred people were arrested. Tomorrow there will be an even bigger protest by women against Trump, and the anarchists will probably try to infilitrate the peaceful protest ranks and foment more violence. I happen to sympathize with those women, who have every right to feel outraged and insulted by the many hurtful words and deeds of the new president.

The ban on emoluments

Some people have argued that President Trump's worldwide business holdings by their very nature put him in the position of violating the Constitution, which prohibits public officials from receiving any gifts or favors from foreign countries:

Article I. Section 10. Clause 8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

If foreign officials were to stay at one of Trump's many hotels around the world, that provision might apply. During his press conference earlier this week, Trump announced that he would turn over all profits from those operations to the U.S. Treasury, but few people are satisfied with that proposed arrangement. There are actually two other clauses pertaining to emoluments, including one in Article II concerning the president, but they don't seem to apply to this question. So what is an emolument? According to Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Edition), it means "gain from employment or position; payment received for work; salary, wages, fees, etc."

In short, Trump's vast business empire creates a massive headache for those seeking to ensure he complies with the law, and with ethical norms. Trump probably should have gone much farther in divesting his problematic assets, but he may be reluctant to take a loss by cashing in now. What else could we have expected? There will no doubt be complaints and accusations of corruption throughout Trump's entire term, making it harder for him to govern effectively.

As dubious as I am of President Trump's agenda and suitability to lead the country, I also have deep reverence for the institutions of American government, so I plan to give him the benefit of the doubt at least for the first few weeks of his presidency. During this "honeymoon" period, I hope he acts in a way that unifies the country.


January 19, 2017 [LINK / comment]

The eve of destruc inauguration *

Well, the dreaded day is finally upon us. I really hope my fears and misgivings about the incoming Trump administration prove to be unfounded, but very little has been said or done in recent days to raise my level of confidence. The war of words between the President-elect and CIA Chief John Brennan (see BBC), Rep. John Lewis, leader of the House Democratic boycott, and others suggest a leader who is incapable of tolerating the slightest offense.

The inaugural festivities tomorrow evening are likely to be paradoxical, with multi-millionaires flattering each other in luxury while the working class voters who put Trump into office figuratively gaze through the window from the outside. The contrast reflects the tensions within the Republican Party, which is undergoing a profound (and probably permanent) transformation into the opposite of what it once stood for. Even though Trump rode a wave of populist resentment into office, there will be no repeat of the 1829 White House keg party, when the rural ruffian supporters of newly-inaugurated President Andrew Jackson (the very model of what it meant to be a true Democrat for many decades) damaged White House furniture while whooping it up. Any trouble from Trump's supporters is likely to involve street clashes between "Bikers for Trump" and anti-Trump protesters. At a time when police in America are regarded with more hostility and scorn than at any time since the 1960s, the possibility of political violence in Washington is especially high.

Even though the term populist aptly describes his base of electoral support, it remains to be seen to what degree will the Trump presidency be meaningfully "populist." I wrote on Facebook that I have studied populist regimes in Latin America, so this is familiar theme to me. In particular, there have been three populist regimes in modern Peru: Gen. Juan Velasco (in power 1968-1975), Alan Garcia (in power 1985-1990), and Alberto Fujimori (in power 1990-2000). The first two pushed a radical, left-wing agenda, the first via a military regime and the second via a democratic regime that proved to be too fragile. Both failed miserably. In contrast, Fujimori surpised everyone by reneging on his vague campaign promises and adopting a harsh free-market economic stabilization program, coupled with a fierce anti-terrorism campaign implemented with authoritarian means. (He launched an "auto-coup" in 1992, shutting down the Congress for almost a year, and having a new constitution drafted.) Fujimori achieved spectacular success in policy, but it went to his head, as his government became entangled in a variety of corruption scandals, and he left office in disgrace soon after being elected (fraudulently) to a third term in 2000.

In terms of his base of support and egoistic tendencies, Trump reminds me a lot of Fujimori, and while I don't think he's a "fascist," his bully-pulpit style does smack of authoritarianism. As I concluded on Facebook, "Chances are, we're in for one hell of a scary ride under Trump. But little if anything will get solved." For more background, see "What The Trump Era Will Feel Like: Clues From Populist Regimes Around The World" at forbes.com; hat tip to Emily, a former student of mine at Sweet Briar College.

Even when I identified as a Republican, I generally avoided the polemics over social and cultural issues. The libertarian in me says "live and let live," and my religious upbringing reminds me of when Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So all of the kulturkampf angst about issues such as abortion, gays marriage, drug abuse, etc. fails to excite me very much. When the cast of the Broadway play "Hamilton" scolded Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence last fall, I was only mildly offended. People who make a living on a stage tend to have an exaggerated sense of their own importance, so it's par for the course. Besides, I'm in no position to judge the aesthetic merits of that play. But having said all that, I must say that the article in Reason.com ("Finally: The Case Against Hamilton"; hat tip to Nick Sorrentino) makes a compelling case about the underlying reasons for the upset election outcome of last November:

"The election of Donald Trump and the leave vote in the United Kingdom aren't just political decisions. They're a cultural revolt against the pomposity of upper-crust liberals who don't have to live with the consequences of their own values. Hamilton is where the modern day Marie Antoinettes tell unemployed forklift drivers to eat cake."

Personally and professionally, I don't really fit into either the "elite" or the "populist" social categories, which gives me perhaps a more neutral perspective on some of the ongoing clashes in American society today.

* That's a not-too-subtle reference to the 1965 protest song by Barry McGuire, "Eve of Destruction," which I will explain in an upcoming blog post.

Is Trump to be taken seriously, or literally, or both, or neither?

A big part of what divides people in America is how they understand Donald Trump, who is prone to making filthy trash talk about his opponents, and grandiose, outrageous boasts about himself. Last September, Salena Zito wrote of Donald Trump in the Atlantic that "When he makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally." For example, his supporters take him seriously (as being capable of governing) but not literally (e.g., they discount his promises about building a wall), while members of the press take him literally (e.g., starting a trade war with China) but not seriously (e.g., he's a buffoon or a clown). I suppose those people (presumably his opponents) who take him seriously and literally must be truly petrified with fright; see Charles Lane in the Washington Post. Me? Up until recently, I haven't been taking him seriously or literally, but now that he is on the cusp of power, I no longer have that luxury.


January 16, 2017 [LINK / comment]

Is Trump a serious president-elect?

Last February 29, I asked (rhetorically), "Is Trump a serious candidate?" He already had a strong lead in the primary races, but was not acting in the dignified manner that one would expect of a front-runner. One might have thought that winning the presidential election would provide him an opportunity to mature, but sadly, nothing has changed: He continues to spout bizarre, obnoxious "tweets" about people who cross him, and makes erratic, impromptu remarks on a wide variety of policy areas. Are people supposed to take his words seriously? Such tendencies raise troubling questions about his capacity to lead this country. Is he indeed a serious president-elect???

The latest dust-up started when Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said that Trump's election victory was not legitimate, and Trump flew into another fit of outrage. Over a dozen Democratic members of Congress (mostly African-American) have announced that they will not attend Trump's inauguration on Friday, to express their rejection of his democratic legitimacy. To me, it's a silly argument that does not merit a serious response. I tend to agree with Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin (a conservative), who wrote that there are so many ways that Trump violates the presidential norms of behavior that harping on his supposed "illegitimacy" completely misses the point.

Fortunately, some Democrats spoke out against the extraordinary boycott led by Lewis, including Sen. Joe Manchin (WV). I watched him on CBS "Face The Nation" on Sunday morning, and was pleased that he criticized Lewis's statement as "uncalled for." (See thehill.com.) The peaceful transfer of power is a delicate matter, and the lack of national unity at this difficult time puts our country in great peril. Ironically, such a reaction is exactly what the Russians were trying to achieve with their cybernetic ("hacking") of U.S. e-mail servers and disinformation; see below. Even though I dread what Trump may do once in office, he was legitimately elected, and those who say otherwise make our country weaker.

Is Trump a Russian stooge?

Protests about Trump's supposed "illegitimate" election are based largely on the Russian cybernetic attacks of last year, but very few informed people think that those things had a decisive effect on the presidential election. Given the fact that hardly any expert thought that Trump had much of a chance to win the election, the idea that the interference was aimed at tipping the outcome in Trump's favor just doesn't make sense. So what were the Russians' intentions? To me, it's obvious, that the Russians were mainly trying to sow doubt and suspicion about our democratic processes, and the way many Democrats (such as Lewis) have responded, the Russians have succeeded marvelously. A fairly balanced and thorough report (by the FBI and DHS) on "Russian Malicious Cyber Activity" dated December 29 can be seen at us-cert.gov (Hat tip to Connie.)

But to hear some people talk, the Russian cybernetic attack signifies that Trump is a mere puppet or stooge of Vladimir Putin. The idea that a multi-billionaire might end up being manipulated in such a way seems extremely remote. (I doubt that there is much to the opposition research "dossier" on Trump's alleged sexual perversions, and would prefer not to worry about that. See independent.co.uk.) Given Trump's authoritarian tendencies, there may well be an affinity between him and Putin, but as I keep reminding people, many of the provocative things Trump says are done mainly to annoy or distract his opponents, and I think the notion of a U.S.-Russian partnership are greatly exaggerated. (I will deal with the strategic and foreign policy aspects of that relationship in the near future.)

Testimony before Senate committees by Ret. Gen. James Mattis (presumed Secretary of Defense) and Rex Tillerson (presumed Secretary of State) has conflicted with Trump on the extent of the Russian threat, yet another cause for concern. They have likewise expressed firm support for NATO, which Trump has questioned. Will he take advice from his cabinet?

Politics: a walk down memory lane

Having put a great deal of effort into warning fellow Republicans about various pathological tendencies within the party (e.g., simplistic populism, narrow exclusivism, excess focus on social/moral/cultural issues), it would be quite hypocritical of me to cast aside those warnings and voice support for Donald Trump. The Grand Old Party is now reaping the bitter fruit it has sowed over the past ten years or more. In light of my departure from Republican ranks, I thought it would be appropriate to review my immediate post-election blog reflections for the past four election cycles:

November 3, 2004: "Victory, Redemption, Reconciliaton" -- (This was when I was just starting to blog on a regular basis, pioneering a new form of political communication that was eventually picked up by many other conservative Republicans in this area.) Having devoted a great deal of time and energy to campaign work on behalf of the Republicans, I was a gung ho party loyalist and made much of George W. Bush's popular vote majority, as a mandate to pursue what then still seemed to be a conservative agenda. I kept under wraps my qualms about Bush's capacity to govern effectively largely. (Over the first half of the first year of Bush's second term, however, my doubts began to grow, as expressed in various blog posts.)

November 5, 2008: "Barack Obama's historic victory" -- I strained to explain the race by John McCain, whose choice of a vice presidential candidate (Sarah Palin) doomed what little chance he had after the economic meltdown in late September. Even though Obama won a bigger margin of the nationwide popular vote than Bush had four years earlier, I still characterized the win as "not decisive." Oops -- not very "fair and balanced"! But at least I was very candid about the election serving as a referendum on the Bush presidency, about which I had become sharply critical over the preceding two years. I stand by my mildly scornful take on the likelihood that Obama's worldwide popularity might translate into positive foreign policy achievements. In light of the subsequent rise of ISIS, one might question with my assertion that Iraq was "being steadily pacified," but I think Obama's precipitous military withdrawal from that country, as well as his diplomatic clumsiness, are primarily to blame for that.

November 7, 2012: "Decision 2012: Obama wins by a clear margin" -- I tried to keep my hopes up in the final weeks of the campaign, but the advantages of incumbency (plus the "fortuitous" hurricane that struck the New York City area) were too much for Mitt Romney -- a.k.a. "Mr. Nice Guy" -- to overcome. My ties to local party politics had greatly withered, and the campaign appearance by Romney (and Paul Ryan) at Fishersville, and an appearance by Ryan in September, were about the only organized events that I attended that year. is a "true conservative" candidate "The fact that Romney has failed to clearly distinguish his agenda from that of Dubya is a discouraging sign that most people in the GOP have not really absorbed the lessons of the 2001-2008 period."

November 9, 2016: "Believe it or not: Trump is elected president" -- That piece was especially difficult for me to write, as I had such negative feelings about both major party candidates. I called attention to what has since become known as "Trump Derangement Syndrome," the hysterical reaction by many leftists to the impending Trump presidency, previously considered almost unthinkable. One of the more controversial observations I made on Election Night was that Trump's surprise victory to a great extent was the visceral reaction by "Middle America" (white, rural, heartland-dwelling) against contemporary popular culture. Many leftists sadly remain convinced that voting for Trump signifies an endorsement of his odious attitudes toward women and certain foreign ethnic or religious groups.


January 6, 2017 [LINK / comment]

Trump's military-industrial complex

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

President Dwight Eisenhower, farewell address, Jan. 17, 1961

Based on his choices to head his incoming administration, President-elect Donald Trump seems either unaware of Eisenhower's warning, or has ignored it. Trump has chosen three former top military officers to serve in his administration, more than any other recent administration. Several other cabinet positions are going to millionaire business persons from Wall Street or otherwise with close connections to the corporate elite. In some cases, the nominees have little evident knowledge of, or experience with, the subject matter covered by their departments. It does not bode well for good government, and calls into question Trump's reformist talk of "draining the swamp" in Washington.

Trump's most significant cabinet choice last month was that of Gen. (ret.) James "Mad Dog" Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense. (Federal law requires Congress to pass a special authorization for any former military officer to serve in a civilian position if less than five years has passed since he or she left the service.) Mattis was reportedly angry that the Trump team chose someone (Vincent Viola, a businessman) to be Secretary of the Army without consulting with Mattis first. (See CNN.com.)

As noted on November 30, the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to be Attorney General is controversial due to his weak record on civil rights issues -- so much so that legal experts and academics from across the country have mounted a campaign to get the Senate to reject him. [Some of his past statements on immigration are disturbing to me. Also controversial is Betsy DeVos, an Ohio billionaire/philanthropist who has been active in the school choice movement. She was a major donor to the Trump campaign. Since I believe that reforming our education system is a high priority, I'm willing to wait and see how she does as Secretary of Education.]

The table below summarizes the cabinet positions and other key advisory positions which Trump has already selected. The column showing each person's career background makes it clear how strong the military and industrial emphasis is. Apart from those two categories, nearly everyone else is a high-ranking Republican politician.

Department (or position) Name Background
State Rex Tillerson Exxon-Mobil
Defense Gen. (ret.) James Mattis U.S. Marines
Treasury Steven Mnuchin Goldman Sachs
Justice (Atty. Gen.) Jeff Sessions U.S. Senate
Agriculture ???
Commerce Wilbur Ross Investor / banker
Labor Andy Puzder CKE Restaurants
Health & Human Serv. Rep. Tom Price U.S. House
Interior Rep. Ryan Zinke U.S. House
Energy Rick Perry ex-gov. of Texas
Veterans ???
Homeland Security Gen. (ret.) John Kelly U.S. Marines
Housing & Urban Dev. Dr. Ben Carson Ret. doctor
Education Betsy DeVos Businesswoman
Transportation Elaine Chao ex-Labor Sec.
Environ. Prot. Scott Pruitt Atty. Gen. of Okla.
Amb. to United Nations Nikki Haley Gov. of S. Carolina
Nat. Sec. Adv. Gen. (ret.) Michael Flynn U.S. Army
W.H. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus Repub. Nat. Chairman
W.H. Chief Counselor & Strategist Steve Bannon Breitbart News
W.H. Counselor Kellyanne Conway Trump campaign

SOURCE: Washington Post, Google, politico.com

"Electoral College" picks Trump

Today, Vice President Joe Biden presided as the electoral votes were officially tabulated on the floor of the U.S. Senate, the final step in making Donald Trump the President-Elect. The 438 people who comprise the Electoral College do not actually gather in the same place, so that term is a bit misleading. Instead, the electors from every state gathered in their respective 50 state capitals (plus D.C.) on December 19, at which point the actual election took place. This year there were rumors of widespread defections of Trump electors, which would have resulted in the election being decided in the House of Representatives, with each state having an equal vote.

The "widespread panic" over the prospect of Trump becoming president sparked a movement to persuade the electors to "vote their conscience," regardless of the popular vote in their state. (electorstrust.org) [Very little came of that effort, however, and as shown in the table below, more Democratic electors defected (5) than Republican ones did (2).] Somehow it was reasoned that the original intent of the Founding Fathers to entrust the selection of the president to an elite group of wise men should count more than the express legislation in the states, many of which impose harsh penalties for "faithless" electors. The most dramatic example of that phenomenon in modern times came in 1960, when Sen. Harry F. Byrd (D-VA) received 15 electoral votes, 14 of which should have gone to John F. Kennedy: eight from Mississippi, six from Alabama, and one from Oklahoma. (270towin.com) As I pointed out on Facebook, it was ironic that some people cited a democratic ideal (the alleged individual rights of the electors to "vote their conscience") to justify a blatantly elitist manner of choosing the president.

Candidate Electoral
Votes
Popular
Votes

(or states with faithless electors)
Donald Trump 304 62,979,879
Hillary Clinton 227 65,844,954
Colin Powell 3 WA
Faith Spotted Eagle 1 WA
John Kasich 1 TX
Ron Paul 1 TX
Bernie Sanders 1 HI

SOURCE: politico.com, 270towin.com;

So, what are we to make of the fact that Hillary Clinton won 2,865,075 votes more than Trump? Other than an indication that Trump has only a weak mandate to enact his agenda, not much. Those who cite the popular vote totals to suggest that Trump is not the duly-elected chief executive are deeply mistaken, and their attitudes have a corrosive effect on our democracy. (Of course, Trump's own comments during the campaign about the election being "rigged" have had the same corrosive effect.) Democracies thrive when all the major players agree in advance on the rules, and abide by the outcome afterward. Those who think it is obvious that the Electoral College is hopelessly archaic apparently don't understand the constitutional basis for national unity, giving the states a prominent role in how the Federal government is chosen. Likewise, those who complain that it's too hard to amend the Constitution to do away with the Electoral College just don't get it.

Along those lines, there is a movement to nullify the Electoral College by getting most of the states to pass legislation that would award all of their (respective) electors to whichever candidate won the nationwide popular vote. Technically, it may be constitutional, since there are provisions for such interstate compacts, but it would be grossly (and ironically) un-democratic, in the sense that the will of the voters of those states [would be ignored]. See every-vote-equal.com

So, to repeat what I have suggested on Facebook, I would propose a consitutional amendment such that any candidate who wins an absolute majority (not just a plurality) the nationwide popular vote and a plurality of the vote in a majority of the states (i.e., 26 or more at present) is declared the president-elect. If those two conditions are not met, then the choice would revert to the traditional Electoral College system, except that the electoral votes would be automatically determined by the elections in each state, without the need for (potentially faithless) human electors. [States could apportion the electors in some fashion, if they so desire; at present, Maine and Nebraska choose electors from each congressional district, plus two statewide.]

The Blog Is Back!!?

(That title is a reference to a certain Elton John song.) It has been over four weeks since the last time I blogged about politics: December 3, to be exact. ("Congressional elections in Virginia: RIGGED!!?") Frankly, the mere thought of a Trump administration fills me with feelings of dread and depression. I understand that his style of outrageous remarks and gratuitous insults is all part of a strategy aimed at paralyzing his opponents, and judging by the way many Democrats (as well as Independents like me) have reacted, it's having the desired effect. It's the modern form of cyber-discourse known as "trolling," and Trump is an expert at it. But the cold, hard reality of a U.S. government led by Donald Trump is fast approaching, and it's time to face up to it.

(NOTE: I will deal with the controversy over the effect of Russian "hacking" on the elections tomorrow.)





U.S. Cabinet, current

Department Secretary
State: Rex Tillerson
Treasury: Steven Mnuchin
Defense: James Mattis
Justice: Jeff Sessions
Interior: Ryan Zinke
Commerce: Wilbur Ross
Labor: Andy Puzder
Agriculture: ???
Health & H.S.: Tom Price
Housing & U.D.: Ben Carson
Transportation: Elaine Chao
Energy: Rick Perry
Education: Betsy DeVos
Veterans Aff.: ???
Homeland Sec.: John Kelly
Other cabinet-level posts:
W.H. Ch./Staff Steve Bannon *
EPA Admin. ???
OMB Director ???
U.S. Trade Rep. ???
Amb. to U.N. Nikki Haley
CEA Chairman ???
Small Bus. Adm. ???
NOTES: All cabinet positions are pending Senate confirmation.
* = not subject to Senate confirmation.

Last updated: 20 Jan 2017


115th Congress
(2017-2018)

U.S. Senate
(Web site)
Post Republicans Democrats
Pres. Pro TemOrrin Hatch--
Leader Mitch McConnell Chuck Schumer
WhipJohn Cornyn Richard Durbin
Seats5246 + 2
Two independents caucus with the Democrats.
U.S. House of Representatives
(Web site)
Post Republicans Democrats
Speaker Paul Ryan
Leader Kevin McCarthy Nancy Pelosi
Whip Steve Scalise Steny Hoyer
Seats240193
The real leaders in each chamber are in bold face.
NOTE: As of Jan. 24, 2017, two House seats are vacant.

Last updated: 29 Jan 2017


Virginia Government

Executive branch
Post Name Party
GovernorTerry McAuliffeDem
Lt. GovernorRalph NorthamDem
Attorney GeneralMark HerringDem
Virginia Senate
Post Republicans Democrats
Pres. Pro Tem Stephen Newman --
LeaderThomas NormentRichard Saslaw
Seats2119
Virginia House of Delegates
Post Republicans Democrats
SpeakerWilliam Howell--
LeaderKirk CoxDavid Toscano
Seats6634
The real leaders in each chamber are in bold face.

In the November 2015 elections, the Republicans retained a 21-19 majority in the Senate, while the Democrats gained two net seats in the House of Delegates.


Last updated: 29 Feb 2016



 

Books on politics: