In the last ten to twelve days we have seen a remarkable display of something — although I am not really sure what we are seeing. But from where I sit, it isn’t good.
In succession we have Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) (a former nominee for president), former Republican President George W. Bush, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) and Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz) all directly or unmistakably reference, the leadership philosophy, character and fitness for office of our current president. All found him seriously wanting in every imaginable category. On top of that, former Democrat President Barack Obama and former Democrat Vice President Joe Biden made similar remarks. But of course their remarks don’t count because of the fact that the Democrats are all “losers” and “whiners.” So let’s just focus on the president’s own party and their criticism.
Some Republicans and some reporters and analysts use words like “feud” and “tit for tat” and “Junior High disputes” to describe the events of the last week. Wrong. Likewise is it wrong to think that their words have no real meaning because, in at least two cases, they have chosen not to run for re-election. Perhaps it gave them more leeway to speak up, but it does not change the import of their words.
To brush it off as some kind of personality clash is to lose sight of what serious men of conscience are actually saying. It is also not really a matter of policy or ideological differences either. For goodness sake, Senators Corker and Flake vote with about a 96% consistency rate with the stated goals of the rest of their party and presumably of the president. (Although it is difficult to know about the latter as his grasp of policy details is suspect and he can change his mind about an issue several times in the same day. For example, with the bipartisan Alexander-Murray bill for a temporary fix of the health care system, where he was for it before he was against it — in the same afternoon.)
These proven Republicans, all of whom I respect even if I don’t agree with their every approach to solving the nation’s problems, make a compelling case that the president is manifestly unfit for office and that his tumbling tumbleweed approach to governing diminishes our place in the world and is dangerous. It is a question of character and the current president is found to be profoundly lacking, if not completely devoid, of it. More precisely Senator McCain said, among other things:
To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems, is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.
We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil. We have a moral obligation to continue in our just cause, and we would bring more than shame on ourselves if we don’t. We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn’t deserve to.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the phrase “blood and soil” is the phrase used by American white supremacists, is associated with some supporters of this administration, and comes from a philosophy from Nazi Germany. “Blut und Boden.” Look it up.
Likewise Senator Flake characterizes the president’s character as a danger to our nation and to peace in the world. The speech is worth reading as many think that in historical terms, we will look back upon it as a clarion call to action to stop the reckless behavior of the current administration. He warns of creating a “new normal” where the most crass and personal petty attacks and lies are taken as the course of events in politics. His condemnation of the current administration is lengthy, but the heart of the matter can be summed up in these passages:
If we simply become inured to this condition, thinking that it is just politics as usual, then heaven help us. Without fear of the consequences and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal. Reckless, outrageous and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as telling it like it is when it is actually just reckless, outrageous and undignified.
And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else. It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit and weakness. It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us, ‘Why didn’t you do something? Why didn’t you speak up?’ What are we going to say?
Mr. President, I rise today to say: enough. We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes the normal.
This is not a “tit for tat” or a personality conflict. These comments, and similar ones by President Bush and even more blunt comments by Senator Corker are alarming. Or they should be.
Politics in the United States has changed in the past year or so from differences in ideas to one where we argue over the populist slogans of the sloganeer-in-chief. I heard it described the other day as “emotional sustenance.” Substance from the chief executive is no longer required, all that is asked of him is that he entertain us. Sadly, that entertainment is not even positive but geared to salve the emotional feelings surrounding perceived slights of those that just want to be mad at the establishment and he indulges them. Substance may not be dead in the Congress, but it is on life support because the man at the top cares nothing about it. Watch the interview from last weekend with Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business News and the president. She served up the most soft ball type questions imaginable and tried to lead him through his own policies, but with little success. Asked about Russia he talked about Bob Kraft (owner of the NFL New England Patriots) and the Super Bowl ring he gave (?) to Vladimir Putin. Having already mentioned the Alexander-Murray bipartisan health care bill, here was his description of it:
Well, I’ve — I have looked at it very, very strongly. And pretty much, we can do almost what they’re getting. I — I think he is a tremendous person. I don’t know Sen. Murray. I hear very, very good things.
I know that Lamar Alexander’s a fine man, and he is really in there to do good for the people. We can do pretty much what we have to do without, you know, the secretary has tremendous leeway in the — under the Obama plans. One of the things that they did, because they were so messed up, they had no choice but to give the secretary leeway because they knew he’d have to be — he or she would have to be changing all the time.
And we can pretty much do whatever we have to do just the way it is. So this was going to be temporary, prior to repeal and replace. We’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare.
A grasp of the issue? You be the judge.
Here is what we now have in the United States of America. We have a chief executive who created a cult of personality, and continues to expand that cult, with no grasp of the issues, no desire to learn the issues and who thinks that bullying (“Liddle’ Bob Corker”, “Little Rocket Man”, Jeff “The Flake” Flake, and countless others) is the way to govern and accomplish something meaningful.
And it gets worse.
As late as yesterday, the Commander-in-Chief continued to argue with a Gold Star widow. Not Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-Fla) who is a close family friend (you may know her better as the president does as “Wacky Congressman (sic) Wilson “). The widow.
Most disappointing was the press conference given by Chief-of-Staff John Kelly last week. After giving a heart wrenching, and something the country as a whole needed to understand, explanation as to how our fallen military members are returned home to grieving families, he went too far. He too attacked Congresswoman Wilson with what was proven to be false accusations. And he went on to show that in this White House, he is really just an admin guy and mouthpiece for the president. Clearly, he does the president’s bidding without question and thereby refutes the idea that he is any kind of filter or brake for the president’s divisive views.
Many people, including military veterans, I’ve spoken with are profoundly disappointed in the president and John Kelly. Many consider this the low point for this administration.
Sadly, I think that demonstrates a lack of imagination. I don’t think we have yet realized just how low the president and many of his advisers are willing to go. How many times in the last two years have people said “that’s it” — surely it cannot get any worse. And then it does.
I think that is why Senators McCain, Corker, and Flake spoke out in recent days. That is why Presidents Bush and Obama spoke out in recent days. They realize the serious threat to our republic embodied by this administration and they cannot sit by and watch it be destroyed.
Unfortunately, too many others in Congress are willing to trade their souls for a tax cut.
All of us have a role to play. We cannot sit idly by and watch our country careen towards ruin.
“I’m not the man they think I am at home” — Elton John in “Rocket Man”
On Tuesday Mr. Trump gave a speech to the United Nations General Assembly that created controversy. It seems you either hated it or loved it. Some people agree with his “America First” pronouncements and others interpret his remarks as being muddled and inconsistent. Either way, despite the fact that much of the ensuing discussion focused on his use of the term “Rocket Man” in referring to Kim Jong Un of North Korea, there is much more to learn about Mr. Trump and about deterrence. (Besides the third grade use of nicknames to belittle people, perhaps some of our insight into Mr. Trump’s real thoughts starts with the lyrics above.)
You can read the full speech for yourself but the focus here is on his remarks about The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) or North Korea. To me, it shows a lack of understanding of both international relations and the real ways in which nations influence other nations or deter them from taking actions counter to our own self-interests.
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary.” — Donald J. Trump at the U.N. on 19 September 2017
Mr. Trump’s supporters may give him high marks for his bravado and willingness to “tell it like it is.” Okay. But what did he really say?
Let’s put this another way. The goal of the United States and other nations is to “denuclearize” the North Koreans. As discussed previously in this blog, Kim Jong Un has no motivation to give up his nuclear weapons. He cares not what happens to his population as long as he and his ruthless regime survive. The lesson he learned from Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya is that if you give in to the West and give up your Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) your regime falls and you get executed. Not very motivational to someone like Kim.
Lesson number two comes from Mr. Trump’s speech. Whether one likes the nuclear agreement with Iran or not, we do not have the same situation developing in Iran as is developing in North Korea. Iran is not testing nuclear weapons. The criticism of the agreement has many parts, mostly along the lines of the United States not drawing enough concessions from Iran. No mention of terrorism, for example. Forgotten in the criticism is that the agreement is intended to be one aspect of a longer term engagement with Iran that does address other areas of concern to us and to them. It showed that a deal could be made with a regime that refused to have anything at all to do with the West for decades. It ensures that today we have only one “nuclear problem” to deal with and not two. I might also point out that it is a multi-lateral agreement. It is not a U.S. – Iran bilateral agreement as many in the current administration seem to address it. The agreement includes the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the European Union representing all members of that organization, and Germany. If the U.S. pulls out of the agreement, as Mr. Trump indicated yesterday that he will do, do not expect the other participants to follow suit. Additionally, any other diplomatic engagement with Iran by the U.S. will die. Iran simply will not trust that the U.S. will abide by any future agreements.
This is where we get back to North Korea. Mr. Trump demands that North Korea come to the table and negotiate a deal to denuclearize the Korean peninsula. Hmmm. Iran did that and now the U.S. calls the deal an embarrassment and threatens to abrogate the agreement. Or as Mr. Trump said of Iran and the nuclear agreement:
“The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it — believe me.” — Donald J. Trump at the U.N. on 19 September 2017
So, let’s see this from Kim’s viewpoint. (Who cares what he thinks, some may say? Let’s not take any grief from those guys — Korean or Iranian. We should care only about ourselves.) Those sentiments are understandable and in a way, correct. Except for one thing. We cannot get Kim (or the Iranians) to do something they don’t want to do just by bullying them.
From Kim’s point of view, those that have trusted the U.S. when it comes to getting rid of their WMD are either dead or betrayed by the U.S. Not much of an incentive to give them up.
It gets worse.
Kim will not give up his missiles or his nuclear weapons as long as he thinks they are critical to his survival. Period. I cannot stress enough that he is all about his personal survival and the continuation of his regime — like it or not. Diplomatic efforts should focus on providing a way to convince him that his regime will survive into the future with some kind of guarantees from those that share a border with him — China, Russia, and South Korea. It might work. But probably not.
It keeps getting worse.
Deterrence is based on several factors, as I’ve discussed in this space in previous posts. Deterrence cannot work if the nation (or individual) that is the focus of the effort, doesn’t know what it is that they are not supposed to do. Additionally, clear and realistic (emphasis on realistic) consequences need to be conveyed and understood by those being deterred. They cannot do something if they don’t know what that is (or out of ignorance they may do it) and the cost/benefit analysis on their end needs to be clear and of a scale that not doing something is better than doing it. One may think that dying is not a good outcome, but it may be if living with the alternative is unacceptable in their calculus, not ours. Understanding one’s opponent is critical. We know very little about what goes on in the DPRK, but what we do know seems to be ignored by the current administration, or at least the guy in charge.
In sum, there needs to be a clear understanding of the behavior desired and a credible response that is unacceptable to the recipient.
With that in mind, let’s return to Mr. Trump’s U.N. remarks where he says, “…but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies…” (meaning if the U.S. is forced to do so). “Defend” against what? He does not say. In the past, North Korea shelled South Korean islands, sank a South Korean naval vessel, killed a U.S. service man in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and other provocations dating back to the capture of the USS Pueblo (AGER-2) in 1968. Not one of these incidents generated a military response from the United States. Expect Kim to test the efficacy of our intention to “defend” ourselves. What will be our response if he again shells a South Korean outpost? I would not expect that the response will be what Mr. Trump threatens, that “…we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” It is not a credible threat. The implication that we will “totally destroy” a population of 24 million, with the additional implication by Mr. Trump that it will be with nuclear weapons (the only way to totally destroy a nation) is preposterous. Or it should be in this scenario. Kim will not see it as a credible threat. Even if he does, it only solidifies his belief that having his own deliverable nuclear capability is his only saving grace. Boasting, bullying, and all the bravado Mr. Trump can muster will not change that and it certainly will not bring Kim to the negotiating table — other than as a delaying tactic to put the finishing touches on his arsenal.
This is why a long list of presidents, Republican and Democrat, warn that the United States “will respond at a time and place of our choosing” to provocations and attacks. It leaves open a wide range of options from doing nothing all the way to “totally destroying” but with a myriad of options in between. I guess that sounds wimpy to the current administration. But leaving one’s options open is the best course.
With no clear “red line” — a term that is misused and misunderstood — that puts realistic limits on Kim’s behavior, and with no credible response for Kim to weigh in his strategic calculations, there is no deterrence and certainly no incentive for him to give up his nuclear weapons.
Mr. Trump fails deterrence 101. There are, of course, many other branches and sequels involved in deterrence theory. But if one does not understand the basics, that empty threats may only precipitate the action one is trying to deter, then there is little point in trying to get the finer points into play.
Furthermore, since the Korean Armistice of 1953, Kim’s grandfather and father created and hammered home the cult of personality so that today the DPRK is Kim and Kim is the DPRK. Every citizen from the time that they can talk is taught that the Americans are the worst people on earth and that the Americans only aim in life is to destroy the DPRK. They believe it. The Korean War is the example taught over and over, given that North Korea was heavily damaged and lost millions of people, military and civilian, in the course of the conflict. To vilify and belittle their leader only adds gasoline to the fire. Mr. Trump handed the North Korean regime a propaganda coup with his statements about Kim and that we will totally destroy their nation. Roll the videotape! It reinforces everything that the population of North Korea has heard for their entire lives.
Which is not to say that we lay down and roll over. The number one role of our national government is to protect our citizens. If Kim pushes we should shove back. We need to continue to reiterate to Kim that he cannot possibly win any military conflict with us or our allies. End of discussion on that point. What is necessary is to convey clearly what we expect of the North Korean regime. Patience and incremental successes may be the path to a common understanding. We don’t back away from conflict where our national interests are at stake, but we also do not want to precipitate a war that will inevitably lead to massive military and civilian casualties on a whim or because we want to play around with cutesy phrases. If one studies the military conflicts which we have entered since the Vietnam War, a pattern emerges. Foreign adversaries continually fail to understand the nature of our society and misinterpret internal political arguments for a lack of will on our part to act militarily. Mr. Trump may reinforce that perception when Kim tests his proclamation with a relatively minor infraction that we ignore (again) or when we do not “totally destroy” his country.
Kim is not a crazy man, even if he and Mr. Trump are trying to out crazy each other in their rhetoric. It is totally sane to have as one’s primary strategic goal the survival of oneself and one’s regime. If the United States truly wants to remove the North Korean’s nuclear capability, the U.S. will have to be more imaginative and creative in our diplomacy. China, and now Russia which has inserted itself onto the scene, are the key players. It is not a mission impossible, but it will take cool thinking and lots of patience. It remains to be seen whether this administration is capable of either, much less both.
Yesterday, 4 June, marked the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Midway Island in 1942 where the U.S. Navy defeated the Imperial Japanese Navy and reversed Allied fortunes in the Pacific campaign. Prior to the battle, the Japanese were on the offensive throughout the Pacific area. Following the battle, they fought a series of defensive operations and steadily retreated back to the home islands.
In a nutshell, the battle entailed an all-in strategy by the U.S. commanders, Commander-in-Chief Pacific Admiral Chester Nimitz and the tactical commanders Rear Admirals Raymond Spruance and Frank Jack Fletcher. Thanks to cryptologists that broke the Japanese code, the U.S. was aware of the Japanese plan to attack Midway Island and presumably, remove the U.S. from any further ability to thwart Japanese expansion. The attack on Midway was accompanied by a nearly simultaneous (due to circumstances the attacks were actually a day apart) on the Aleutian Islands in Alaska — an attempt to remove U.S. Army Air Corps aircraft from being in range of the Japanese home islands.
In the battle four Japanese aircraft carriers went up against three from the U.S. Navy. In short, all four Japanese carriers — Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, and Soryu — sank, along with the resulting loss of airplanes, pilots and crews. They also lost a heavy cruiser, a destroyer, and other ships were badly damaged. The Japanese Navy was never able to recover from those losses as their industrial capacity simply could not replace what was lost, along with the lack of seasoned pilots. The U.S. Navy lost one carrier, the USS Yorktown and one destroyer. Military historians such as John Keegan call the victory “the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare.”
Without going into all the details of the battle, it is apparent that there many instances of heroic actions. In our present days of troubled times and divisive political arguments, I find it worthy to focus on a small, but significant portion of the battle. I trust that today, we can find men (and now women) that hold the same high level of selflessness, courage and devotion as those of the torpedo squadrons of the Douglas TBD Devastators from VT-3 on Yorktown, VT-6 on Enterprise, and VT-8 from the Hornet. These airplanes flew low and slow in order to attack surface ships with torpedoes. In order to get the torpedo on target, it meant a long, slow, straight approach into the teeth of the Japanese air defenses.
The Devastators were on their own due to inexperience on the part of the American commanders coupled with the desire to strike the Japanese first. Therefore they launched their aircraft piecemeal which resulted in an uncoordinated attack by the torpedo bombers without fighter escorts. They were doomed. Of the forty-one aircraft launched, thirty-five were lost attacking the targets, with no hits against the enemy. On each of those airplanes, a three-man crew piloted and fought the aircraft. A heavy loss of life. The aircraft was never used again in battle in the Pacific.
Their sacrifice secured the victory because while the Japanese were preoccupied with the torpedo bombers, they became confused as to the big picture. This allowed the Navy’s dive bombers and remaining fighter escorts to arrive over their targets virtually undetected and caught the bulk of the Japanese aircraft on the deck of the carriers while refueling and rearming. Three Japanese carriers were destroyed in about five minutes and the fourth sank from its damage later in the day.
The pilots and crews of the Devastators did not think that they were on a suicide mission. No one expects anything bad to happen to them, individually, when on a mission. Yet, they understood the odds and that they weren’t good. By the time of the battle, the U.S Navy knew that the aircraft was obsolete and vulnerable, but no replacement aircraft had yet made it to the fleet. Additionally, once over the Japanese fleet they knew that they were alone, without fighter escort, and had no idea where the dive bombers might be. They knew that the plan, a coordinated attack with all forms of aircraft striking the Japanese simultaneously was out the window. They were on their own. And yet, they went forward, alone.
As we argue over less important issues today, it serves us well to remember the sacrifices made by those that went before us. They knew that they were involved in a cause bigger than their individual lives, and they knew that only true sacrifice would carry the day. Along with our thoughts as a grateful nation, we should also step back and think of our own lives and ability to follow in their foot steps.
We can all benefit from their selfless example.
Much has been written and discussed lately concerning the Electoral College. Some argue that it is an anachronism that outlived its usefulness. Others argue that it is integral to the foundation of our republic and must stay in place. There are strong arguments on both sides of the issue and it seems that most people’s opinions are colored by whether they see our country as one nation, indivisible — as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance — or whether they see it as a collection of united states.
Although the discussions surrounding the Electoral College pop up every four years in conjunction with presidential elections , they are more noticeable this time around given that we have two presidents out of the last three (George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump) that lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College. There are only three other times in our entire history where this happened. John Quincy Adams became president in 1824 through a vote in the House of Representatives. Although Andrew Jackson won more Electoral College votes, he did not win enough to get a majority as required under the Twelfth Amendment (more on that later) and the House elected Mr. Adams. In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes became our president despite having lost the popular vote and the Electoral College vote — until 20 disputed electoral votes were changed under a compromise between Republicans and Democrats and awarded to Mr. Hayes. This despite the fact the his opponent Samuel J. Tilden not only had more popular votes, but had a majority of the vote (just over 50%). And we think our current election was contentious. The only other time that the Electoral College victory came despite losing the popular vote was in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison defeated the incumbent president Grover Cleveland by campaigning to keep trade tariffs high to protect American jobs. Some things don’t change.
For the next 124 years there were no instances of a candidate losing the popular vote but still winning the Electoral College vote. And now in the first sixteen years of the 21st century it happened twice. Thus the argument over whether it is still a valid way to elect our presidents.
To fully understand the issue, a quick history of the reasons for the Electoral College are in order. Briefly stated, it was established because our esteemed Founding Fathers did not want the citizens of the new United States to elect the president. Remember that their ideal for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was really meant for white wealthy males. The pursuit of happiness meant property, and wealth meant education. The masses were considered unfit and untrustworthy to elect the “real” leaders of the nation. Thus the president was elected by the Electoral College and United States Senators were elected by the legislatures of each state. The House of Representatives was the “people’s house” — the safety valve for allowing the average citizen to participate. Note that Senators are elected for six years (designed to provide stability and experience) and the House is elected every two years, making it easily changeable.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution created the Electoral College as the means to elect the President and the Vice President. In practice it did not work out so well and the procedure was modified through the Twelfth Amendment when it was ratified in 1804. All subsequent elections have been carried out under that amendment. Clearly a precedent was set that if our method of electing the president is not efficient or effective, then it can be changed.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution was replaced by the Seventeenth Amendment when it was ratified in 1913 and provided for the direct election of Senators, vice having them elected by state legislatures. This is another precedent that our voting procedures can change with the times.
Both of these changes are relevant to the arguments for and against the continued use of the Electoral College. The arguments are cogent on both sides of the issue, although passions sometimes run rampant rather than logic or historical facts.
Some of the arguments for eliminating the Electoral College, or to significantly change the way that it works, include the following.
- Our presidential election process is not democratic. It is the only national office where “one person, one vote” does not apply. As has happened, the voice of the people can be muted or eliminated by the electors choosing someone who did not win the popular vote.
- Originally Senators were picked in a manner very similar to the Electoral College voters. That process was changed with an amendment to the Constitution to allow direct voting. If that can change because the original purpose for state legislators to vote for Senators changed, then that same argument for the purpose of the Electoral College is no longer relevant. We now have an educated citizenry with easy access to communications and an understanding of the issues.
- The Electoral College was meant to be a check on the whims of the citizens. Most states now require the electoral voters to match the results of the popular vote in their state, thus the original purpose of the college is no longer followed.
- Too much power is invested in smaller states relative to their population. For example, one electoral vote in Wyoming equals 142,741 people whereas in New York one electoral vote equals 519,075 people. One can argue that this is patently unfair to all voters, and gives disproportionate power to states with small populations.
- The House of Representatives could elect the next president and in doing so totally ignore the wishes of the electorate. This would happen if the Electoral College vote ends in a tie, a mathematical possibility unrelated to the national popular vote results. The vote in the House is by state — one state, one vote — thus giving Rhode Island the exact same say in choosing a president as Texas.
- It solidifies a two-party system and precludes the possibility of other candidates making a meaningful run for president.
- A president may punish a state that voted for his/her opponent even though many citizens of that state voted for the winner.
- Presidential candidates ignore states that are safely in their camp or that they believe will not vote in their favor. They end up not visiting large states (no serious campaigning by either candidate in New York, California, Texas for example) and small states (no serious campaigning in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming for example). They only campaign in a handful (about ten) of swing states.
Some of the arguments for keeping the Electoral College as it is include the following.
- The Electoral College protects states rights. Small states would lose their voice in presidential elections in favor of states with large populations. Candidates would only focus on states such as New York, California, Texas and Florida.
- The two-party system is preserved. Such a political system is proven to be the best form for governing in the United States through competing political parties and their ideas . If the Electoral College is eliminated in favor of directly voting for candidates, multiple candidates could conceivably run and splinter the popular vote. This could allow a candidate with only 20 or 30% of the vote to win.
- The Electoral College embodies our nation’s principle of federalism and eliminating it could be the first step in dismantling that system of governing.
- Only the “coastal elites” in large cities would get presidential attention.
- No one should mess with what the Founding Fathers created. They knew what they were doing.
- To change or abolish the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment. This process may open the door to other changes to our Constitution.
- A victory in the Electoral College gives the president the legal authority to govern all of the states and all of the population.
To me, the strongest argument for changing or eliminating the system is that states with small populations have a disproportionate impact on the election. The strongest argument for keeping our current process is to prevent a candidate from winning in a race with multiple candidates and garnishing only a small percentage of the popular vote.
Additionally, given the current political climate in our nation, any attempt now to change the Constitution would probably open a Pandora’s Box of other issues that could fundamentally change our Constitution and thus our way of life.
Although it goes against my preference, I reluctantly conclude that keeping the Electoral College is, at least for now, the best thing for our country.
And no, the Electoral College does not have a football team. And that’s too bad.
As we wake up on the morning after one of the most divisive campaigns in our life times, some of us are elated, some disappointed and a lot of us are probably simply amazed at the results. Whatever we feel, as is our custom and history, it is time to move on and actually get things done.
Yesterday I had a big dose of what is best about our country. I was a sworn election judge in the state of Maryland. Other states may have other titles, or you may simply know us as poll workers. It was a great civics lesson and a great lesson in what makes this country continue to be great.
It was a very long day (nearly 15 hours on the job) but a very positive day. Election judges in Maryland are regular citizens who come forward every two years to work for their country and for their fellow citizens. They cover the spectrum of our national make up. Young (one can be a judge at 17) and old, from every ethnic group and socio-economic status, and of differing political parties, the judges are a true cross-section of America. Throughout our training and while on the job, each and every person I met was courteous, friendly, conscientious and dedicated to doing the job correctly. It was inspiring.
I can also assure our fellow citizens that the election judges on the job, at the individual polling places, are serious about the importance of their work and that they took joy in doing the job the right way. I can also assure you that both the polling process and those working on site are dedicated to allowing for each and every qualified citizen to vote. It is a great, and dare I say, satisfying process.
Even as the day wore on and we all began to sag a bit in body, there was never a let down in spirit or determination to do things correctly, by the book, and in compliance with the law. It may surprise a voter who has not had this opportunity to know the meticulous way that the process unfolds. Maryland uses paper ballots that are electronically scanned. There are three ways that they can be counted and compared and the paper ballots are retained in case of a recount or an anomaly in the electronic tabulation. There are written procedures followed meticulously that include keeping track of each and every ballot, with double and triple checks and balances and total chain of custody requirements. Every scrap of paper (ballots, multiple forms for record keeping, and polling material) are accounted for, catalogued and returned to the Board of Elections. Every two years, these workers take time off from school, work, retirement or whatever to serve their fellow citizens and to help them through the process. It was a good sign for the future of our nation.
Equally gratifying was to work with and observe the voters that came into our precinct to vote. Just as the workers represented a cross-section of our nation, so did the voters in every way imaginable. That includes the processes to ensure the visually impaired, physically challenged, and just about every other condition imaginable was able to cast their ballot. Uniformly, the voters were cheerful, excited about exercising their right to vote (even if not uniformly excited about the campaigns themselves), and demonstratively appreciative of the work being done by us at the polling place. In a particularly memorable way, whenever a young person came in and was identified as a first time voter, the judge working with them would announce it to the rest of us and all of the judges (there were about twelve of us) would shout and clap in congratulations. The smiles on those first time voters when we did that was priceless. In a campaign season that did not always highlight the best of our nation, it was exciting and refreshing to see that the voters, our neighbors, were understanding of how little acts of courtesy and kindness can transform a situation.
As we move forward into somewhat uncharted territory in our nation’s history, my hope is that the values, spirit and cooperation that I observed on election day continue as we move on to the next great adventure in our national life.
Lost in all of the U.S. presidential campaign news, one may be forgiven for missing the increasingly worrisome activity in northern Europe where the Russian bear is flexing his muscles. While there have been numerous incidents of Russian military ships and aircraft harassing North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other friendly nations’ aircraft and vessels, especially in and near the Black Sea, some of the most provocative have occurred in and around the Baltic Sea.
The number of incidents began to increase in the spring of 2014 and through out the rest of that year there were approximately nineteen serious or high risk incidents including a massive Swedish Navy search for a Russian submarine in the Stockholm archipelago and simulated bombing and cruise missile attacks against NATO countries as well as exercises perceived to be practice for invading the Baltic States. Throughout 2015 and 2016 there have been numerous additional close encounters with the Russian military, precipitated by the Russians and interpreted to be deliberate provocations. This includes this past April when two Russian military aircraft flew a simulated attack 30 feet over the guided missile destroyer USS Donald (DDG-75) while in international waters. A few days later Russian fighters intercepted a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft over international waters in the Baltic. And the (very long) list of such provocations goes on.
In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, at the height of the cold war, such incidents were frequent, and dangerous. In order to prevent misunderstandings which could lead to bloodshed and possible conflict, the United States and Soviet Union formulated the Incidents At Sea Agreement, signed by Secretary of the Navy John Warner, and his Soviet counterpart Admiral Sergei Gorshkov. By providing specific protocols when U.S. and Soviet ships and aircraft were in proximity to each other it was designed to “enhance mutual knowledge and understanding of military activities; to reduce the possibility of conflict by accident, miscalculation, or the failure of communication; and to increase stability in times of both calm and crisis.” Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the withdrawal of much of its military back to the homeland, there was very little need for the agreement and it ceased to be useful. It may be time to update it and renew it.
The real question, however, is what is going on? Why are the Russians resuming their provocative maneuvers against NATO and other western powers? The answer may be found in one of two names, or more likely a combination of two names: Vladimir Putin and Ukraine. Putin wants to rebuild the Russian Empire and by that we mean that he is looking for good old-fashioned respect as a world and military power. The incidents are meant to remind the West that he is the major player in his part of the world and that he can (and may?) do whatever he desires. To paraphrase the old adage, “Russia is back!” In 2005 he made a major speech to the Russian people where he is translated as saying:
“Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.”
Remember that this was a large part of his justification for entering Ukraine and in annexing the Crimea. He argues that he is protecting Russian citizens and “ethnic” Russians and thus fulfilling his duties as head of the Russian state. During the time of the Soviet Union, many now independent nations around the periphery of the old Soviet Union were “colonized” by Russians and many also settled there for economic and other reasons. They and their descendants remain.
This background is important in understanding the current state of affairs in the Baltic States — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — and to a slightly lesser degree, Poland. The Baltic States were part of the Soviet Union and Poland was part of the Warsaw Pact dominated by the Soviet Union.
Geographically they are at a strategic disadvantage. A look at a map reveals two important features. One is that between Poland and Lithuania is a part of the Russian state called Kaliningrad, a major Russian military outpost. Second is that the border between Russia and Poland and the Baltic States is mostly flat ground with no significant defensible geographic features that would impede a ground attack from rolling across the border and deep into the country under attack.
I had the pleasure of making a short stop in Tallinn the capital of Estonia recently. The people are very friendly, full of energy and eager to see their new nation become integrated into world affairs. They are also well aware that only a short time ago they were occupied by the Germans and then subjugated by the Russians as one of the republics of the Soviet Union. They became an independent nation in March 1990 despite resistance to their independence by the Russians. Their history is very fresh in their in minds and if they doubt the impact Russia can have on their new nation, they are reminded of it every day. Directly across from their parliament building sits the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral built in the late 1800’s as a Russian Orthodox cathedral during the time of Estonia’s inclusion in the Russian Empire. It was part of the Russification efforts underway at the time to assimilate the Estonians. It purposefully occupies the most prominent position in the Old Town on top of a bluff above the town. Although it fell into decay during the Soviet era, it was beautifully restored in recent years but is still considered by many Estonians to be a symbol of Russian oppression. It should also be noted that while Estonians consider themselves to be culturally different from Russians, approximately 25% of the population is Russian.
Needless to say, the combination of Putin’s desire to regain the “empire” coupled with his actions in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea makes the Russian military provocations in the Baltic area very meaningful to those that live there. The Baltic States and Poland are among the twenty-eight members of NATO. And that’s where it starts to get interesting.
Earlier this month, President Obama and the other heads of state met at a NATO summit in Warsaw. Many topics were covered ranging from Afghanistan to Ballistic Missile Defense to ISIS. But a major topic, the one capturing the attention of those following it closely, was a key decision concerning the Baltic area. For several years now, the United States and other members have rotated troops and fighter wings through the Baltic States as a reminder to Russia that NATO has a stake in their continued independence. At this year’s summit, those provisional deployments were made firmer. In response to Russian provocations, the NATO members decided to deploy ground forces (four battalions) on a rotating basis, but always there, in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. Additionally, air and naval forces will conduct periodic training in and near the area. The point is much the same as our stationing of troops in West Germany during Cold War I. Should the Russians make a move on one of these states, they will need to go through NATO forces to do it and thus risk war. To be clear, the numbers of NATO forces there are a drop in the bucket and would not meaningfully impede a Russian advance. They are there as a symbol of resolve. Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (the creation of NATO) an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. It is the principal of collective defense that has helped to keep the peace in Europe and provided the foundation for a period of economic and political stability that has lasted for roughly seventy years. The first time in the history of NATO that Article 5 was invoked was following the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001.
The idea of collective defense coupled with the military capability and political will to back it up has been the cornerstone of American foreign policy since World War II. There was never any doubt about the U.S. commitment to NATO and our allies. It served as a major block to Soviet adventurism in Cold War I and is a serious warning to Putin’s adventurism as Cold War II begins to build. Never a doubt. Until now.
In a foreign policy interview published by the New York Times on 21 July, Mr. Donald J. Trump (R-Manhattan) threw that commitment into doubt. You can read it for yourself using the link, but here is part of that interview:
SANGER: I was just in the Baltic States. They are very concerned obviously about this new Russian activism, they are seeing submarines off their coasts, they are seeing airplanes they haven’t seen since the Cold War coming, bombers doing test runs. If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don’t think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid?
TRUMP: I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I’m not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.
SANGER: They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated ——
TRUMP: We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills.
SANGER: That’s true, but we are treaty-obligated under NATO, forget the bills part.
TRUMP: You can’t forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they’re supposed to make. That’s a big thing. You can’t say forget that.
SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——
TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.
HABERMAN: And if not?
TRUMP: Well, I’m not saying if not. I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.
Regardless to say, this created a high level of anxiety throughout the capitals of our allies and seriously casts into doubt the viability of collective defense. To be effective, Article 5 has to be an article of faith for every member and for every potential opponent. Otherwise, it has little meaning. As Cold War II develops, I’m sure Vladimir Putin was celebrating.
The title of this piece is the same as the motto that for years can be found on the license plates of vehicles registered in Washington D.C. Most tourists, when they recognize it, are startled to see it and often ask about it, thus the reason for it being there in the first place. The answer, however, while simple in response — “the District has no voting representatives in the Congress” — is far less simple in the context of the current political world.
To many D.C. residents, last Tuesday’s Democrat presidential primary in the District was symbolic of their plight in the modern United States. While afforded the opportunity to vote for one of the nominees (Hillary Clinton won, while Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) won the Republican primary held in March), their votes were the last in the nation and of no significance since the nomination had already been decided.
It may be useful to put things in a quick historical context. As we all learned in elementary school, Washington became the new capital city for the newly created United States. Created by Congress through passage of the Residence Act in July 1790, the city’s location was the result of a compromise hammered out between Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) already provided for a federal district that was not a part of any state and that would be governed by the Congress. Maryland and Virginia each donated land along the Potomac River that created a square-shaped jurisdiction and included the existing cities of Georgetown on the Maryland side, and Alexandria on the Virginia side. In 1846 Congress returned Virginia’s donated land to the state (a complicated story in itself but it has to do with slaves as well as the city of Alexandria, and the fact that all federal buildings were constructed on the Maryland side) creating the current District’s size and shape.
For most of their history, D.C. residents had no say over how their city was governed. The first significant change came in the early 1960’s with the ratification of the Twenty-third Amendment to the Constitution which gave the District three electoral college votes for president. The votes are allocated according to population, but regardless, cannot exceed the number of votes allotted to the least populous state.
In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that allowed for the citizens of the city to elect a mayor and 13 Council members. The first mayor was elected in 1975.
What is the significance of this brief history lesson? Well, because of these cases and others, some legal scholars argue that, starting with the return of Virginia’s portion of the District, the Congress undid many elements of the original Constitution, thus setting a precedent that the District should be allowed home rule.
Here’s the real rub. The District’s citizens resent that Congress over rides many of the laws that they pass within the Council or via referendum among the citizens. Often, they are undone by conservative members of Congress that, according to many of the District’s citizens, use D.C. as a personal lab to push conservative causes that they cannot get done in their home state or in the Congress. Additionally, when Congress is gridlocked, the District suffers because their budget, just like the Defense Department or the State Department is held hostage during the negotiations, making it difficult to run the city because even though they have the money (their own money, they argue) unless Congress authorizes them to spend it, they are not able to do so.
This is relevant today, as another major battle is brewing between the District’s government and Congress. While D.C. supposedly has home rule, they must have their budget approved by Congress . This year the city government says that while they will submit it to Congress for review, they will not wait for approval and will spend the $13 billion dollars as they see fit. That budget breaks down to $4 billion in federal taxes and $7 billion in local property, sales, and other taxes. (In the past, Congress would block spending on items or issues of which they did not approve. They also control all of the funds, including those through local taxes.) It is, as the Washington Post observed, essentially a Declaration of Independence by the city. The Congress is not amused. It may be a fight that D.C. cannot win, with threats of contempt of Congress and possible jail time for the mayor and Council. Such activity directly in spite of Congress is deemed un-Constitutional. In a vote in late May, the House voted to nullify the District’s voter approved measure to give themselves autonomy over their own city’s spending.
The real issue of course is whether or not Washington D.C. should become the fifty-first state.
Primarily, the desire of an increasing number of the city’s citizens is for autonomy in creating budgets and taking legislative actions, and gaining voting representation in Congress, just like the “other” states — 67% of voters in D.C. want statehood according to a poll last fall. (Currently the District has one representative or “delegate” in the House but that person cannot vote on legislation.)
The behind the scenes issue is that Washington D.C. voters are primarily Democrats and that giving the District two Senators and a member of Congress would add to the numbers of Democrats in those two legislative bodies.
As argued by the proponents of statehood, and delineated in the Post, Washington D.C. is not an economically backward city dependent on the federal government for its income. For example:
- The D.C. economy is bigger per capita than 16 states.
- The D.C. budget is less reliant on federal funds than are those of 30 states.
- D.C is actually a “donor state” along with states such as New York, Massachusetts, and California that pay more in federal taxes each year than the receive in services from the federal government.
- D.C. has a larger population than Vermont and Wyoming.
- Large portions of the city pay no local taxes as they are federally owned (Capital, White House, monuments, etc.) or are owned by tax-exempt entities.
- D.C. has its own National Guard unit and its citizens serve in the Armed Forces of the United States without a say in how such forces are used.
- Most federal workers live in Maryland or Virginia, paying no taxes in D.C., while the city has to bear the expenses of providing services (police, fire, sewer, etc.) to those workers.
The list goes on and on. Washington D.C. has its share of arguments as to why it should become the fifty-first state. And yet, there is that pesky little document called the Constitution.
Personally, I do not think that Washington D.C. should become a state. However, clearly a compromise of some sort that gives the citizens of D.C. some say in their own, and their nation’s affairs should be reachable. Past efforts at compromise have failed, mainly for political reasons that have little to do with city politics or policies and more to do with wielding power in the Congress.
Other proposals include giving the land back to Maryland and thus D.C. would have two Senators (Maryland’s) and gain representation in the House based on population. Unfortunately, Maryland does not want to regain the city and the District does not want to join Maryland.
My thought is that D.C. is on the right track. Allow the city to manage its own fiscal and legislative affairs, just like any other governmental entity in our country. Make the “delegate” a voting member of the House and add (or subtract) Representatives based on population and the current census used to draw up representation in the House. No representation in the Senate.
The original creation of Washington D.C. was a compromise. It seems that a reasonable compromise is attainable in the twenty-first century so that all of our nations’ citizens have some form of representation in designating how their tax dollars will work.