tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63249874148719252902024-03-26T07:36:09.287-07:00Castnet Commentaryfransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.comBlogger187125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-1213772803939190772024-03-26T07:35:00.000-07:002024-03-26T07:35:35.239-07:00MARCH MADNESS<p><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">This is the
time of the annual ritual of the college level basketball championship, the
NCAA basketball tournament, better known as ‘the big dance’. A big deal it is
indeed with large swaths of the American population filling out their brackets
in the hope that this time their favorite college basketball team comes out on
top, filling the heart with pride and putting some reward money in the pocket
of the ones who picked the correct winner. With legalized on-line betting a lot
of money will be won or lost before it is all over with the Final Four getting
played on April 6 and the Final on April 8. Most Americans hate paying taxes
and for politicians lowering taxes is the favorite path to electoral success,
but the same people don’t think twice about spending hard earned money on
betting, gambling, and the lottery all enabled by the same politicians looking
for sources of income to offset their tax reductions. But I digress. Most of
the tournament is played during the month of March, which is why the tournament
named ‘the big dance’ is also known as March Madness because it gets people
riled up and is always full of surprises. After a long season that started in
November, the field has finally dwindled down to 64 at the start of the
tournament and with two rounds played over four days, there are now only 16
surviving teams, affectionally known as the Sweet Sixteen. This year all eight
of the #1 and #2 ranked teams made it into the Sweet Sixteen, which mitigates
the madness for this year, but two blue ribbon teams, Kentucky and Kansas, made
an early exit and thus spoiled the hopes and the brackets of a lot of betters. It
is a time of ups and downs, highs and lows, as 64 teams are elated to make it
to the big dance, while in the end all but one are hit by elimination. It is
one of the iconic sporting events in America and one that dominates for many
days the TV screens and leaves few sports fans untouched. For the weeks between
the start of the tournament on March 21 and the final on April 8, it provides a
welcome distraction from the other madness that plays itself out in American
life.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif;">At the time
of this writing both the political campaign and the legal battles the former
President is involved in are in full swing. It is clear by now that Trump’s
campaign will be fought primarily at the steps in front of the various court
houses where his cases are getting heard. The guy has an uncanny capacity to
turn a negative into a positive, at least in the eyes of the public. Yes, he is
getting litigated in civil and criminal courts, but chances are slim that he
will get verdicts against him that can be executed before the November
elections and, if he wins, all the charges against him will evaporate, or, if
not, he will pardon himself and go after all judges and attorneys general that
have dared to challenge him. In the meantime, his campaign doesn’t have to pay
for expensive rally venues or the expense of flying around the country, because
he gets free national coverage in the media while entering and exiting the
several court venues and by playing the card of the unjustly persecuted
political adversary, he avails himself of excellent fund-raising opportunities.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif;">In the light
of all this, it is becoming increasingly clear that in contemporary America
there is no equal justice under the law. If you are rich enough to hire every willing
lawyer available and keep paying them (with money you collect from your
political sympathizers) and influential enough to drive politics, you’re
treated with velvet gloves and given all the breaks. No regular guy in America
could afford to keep appealing every ruling issued against him and keep coming
up with one motion after another for case dismissal, case delays, and other
legal maneuvers, frivolous or not, and get away with that. And no other
litigant than the former President could get away with baseless attacks on and ridicule
of judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and jurors, without getting slammed for
contempt of court, witness tampering, or getting penalized for defamation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif;">We are now
years away from the times that the alleged misdeeds of the former President
were perpetrated, and he has not been held accountable for any of it, causing
the current scenario where the court appearances coincide with the Presidential
election campaign. In no small part is this due to the DOJ being very late getting
out of the starting box in its zeal to avoid any appearance of politicizing the
judicial process. Whatever one may think of the merits of the cases against the
former President, it is hard to see how any of them can be resolved in only
weeks or days from the November 5 election, without having an undue and
undesirable impact of the outcome of the election.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif;">It is hard to
determine if the velvet glove treatment of the former President by the courts
to date is the result of the ideological bent of the judges making the
decisions, out of deference of one branch of government for another, or out of fear
for the public outcry that is sure to follow any ruling for or against the
former President.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif;">We are
reminded every day of the huge impact that bench appointments pushed by the
Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation and executed at times of
Republican control of the White House and the Senate have on the delivery of
justice, not just at the level of the Supreme Court but also at the federal
district courts and the appellate courts. No better proof of this than in the
Supreme Court reversal of the ruling by the Supreme Court of Colorado that the
former President is disqualified from being on the ballot under section 3 of
the 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment of the US Constitution. A decision that in effect
renders section 3 of the 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment null and void for (former)
Presidents of the United States. With Biden in the White House and Democratic
control of the Senate, a more diverse selection has replenished the bench, but
it is unnerving that the staffing of the judicial branch has so much become a
political matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif;">If the former
President manages to get re-elected to the White House, in spite of the fact
that he was impeached and indicted for fomenting an insurrection against the
Constitution, and in spite of all of his character flaws and civil misconduct, it
will only be because of imperfections in our democratic system, including the
insertion of the Electoral College in the process of electing our top executive.
It is scary to think that a Presidency can be decided by only a few thousand
votes in a handful of battlefield States, even if the overwhelming popular vote
favors the losing candidate. If that happens March Madness will pale in
comparison with what follows then.<o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-59453111733004943382024-02-26T07:26:00.000-08:002024-02-26T07:26:45.029-08:00COLLATERAL DAMAGE<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I can no
longer hide it. It’s been getting personal. I’m in my rapidly passing ‘golden
years’ and yet I’m finding myself utterly incapable of living in the moment, just
enjoying the many blessings bestowed on me and my family. And the reason is
Donald Trump and what he has done to the Republican Party and the American
political system. It has inflicted colossal collateral damage. My days are
being spent fretting over the question if and when he will be held to account
for the damage he has wrecked on the functioning of the American republican
democracy and if and when the members of what once was the Grand Old Party will
confess to the errors of their ways and revert back to their traditional
conservative beliefs.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">In my 2014
book “Neither Here nor There, a First Generation Immigrant in Search of
American Exceptionalism” (available on Amazon.com) I wrote about my coming to
America that ‘given my experience with socialism in Europe and my evaluation of
the origins of American democracy, I found myself more at home with the basic
credo of the Republican Party than the platform of the Democratic Party.’ How
the world has changed! And, at the risk of sounding cliché, I proclaim that I
did not change so much as the party has changed. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Nowadays,
from the time I wake up in the morning until I retire for the night, I keep my
I-phone within reach and check on every ping to see if any court has ruled in
any way on one of the many court battles involving Trump or his co-conspirators,
to read everything written about section 3 of the 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment, and
follow every election that reflects on the balance of power between a
degenerate Republican Party and the Democrats and Independents who form the
bulwark against a slide of our democratic governance system into
authoritarianism. It is not that I want it to be so, but I just can’t shake the
sense that the fate of the great American experiment will be decided by what
happens now, in the run-up to the November elections, by how the voters will judge
the culpability of Trump, and ultimately by how the losing side will respond to
the verdict of the final arbiter, the American electorate. And I don’t want to
be caught unawares. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Admittedly,
in retirement I may have too much time on my hand to fret about these things,
but clearly, I’m not the only one affected. Trump has managed to alter the
social landscape in that people have given up on normal political discourse and
have entrenched in their camps, informed only by Fox News and Newsmax on one
side and CNN and MSNBC on the other. I blame Trump, and the blind and dumb
masses that follow this pied piper, for the fact that I have become a single-issue
socialite. It is collateral damage from a criminally corrupt assault on
Republican democracy by a thug who should have been cast out of the running
before he even started but wasn’t. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">I find
myself in the despicable position that in every conversation, live, by phone,
or other media, with family, friends, and chance connections alike, my mind
keeps wandering off to the only topic that matters to me now: ‘How do we get
out of this mess and block the populist autocrats from ruling the roost.’ It is
that important, and alarming, to me. Even though I would probably not have to live
long with the consequences, I shudder to think what the world would look like
after a win for Trump in November. Others have already been painting that scenario
in vivid colors. It is not that we have not been forewarned. Thankfully, Trump’s
campaign message is so outrageous, incoherent, and false that I have to think
that he has been digging his own grave, in fact a mass-grave for him and all
his lackeys in the MAGA realm, and that the rational voters in November will unambiguously
reject him. But even in that case the threat will not be entirely averted. It
will be near impossible for the Democrats to hold on to their majority in the
Senate in November and the Trump faction will remain amply represented there.
And we can rule out that Trump and his voters will concede defeat, even if the
numbers will show him losing the electoral college vote and the popular vote.
The question then becomes (again) if the institutions protecting democracy will
hold against all the shenanigans we can expect from legislators, in Congress
and the State legislatures, who have pledged fealty to the pied piper. One
thing will be in democracy’s favor this time: the pied piper will not have the
power of the White House behind him, and the Vice President will not be on his
side. For protection of our democracy, it will be extraordinarily important
that the Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives to assure
that, at a minimum, one half of the three branches of government will be
protected from a slide into authoritarianism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">In the
meantime, it would be helpful if the Supreme Court, in its upcoming rulings
about Trump’s disqualification under section 3 of the 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment
and the immunity claim, makes it abundantly clear that America is a nation of
laws and that nobody, not even a (former) President is above the law. In the
process, the Supreme Court should allow the court system to bring the major
Trump litigations to a verdict prior to November 5, so that the voters have
indisputable guidance on the (lack of) qualification of the Presidential
candidates for office.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">With so much
to be decided in the coming months, and so much riding on the outcomes, I’m
afraid that my single focus obsession with what happens next will not be
interrupted anytime soon. Call it collateral damage, caused by misguided missiles
or, rather, a malicious misfit.</span><o:p></o:p></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-8159229903264183562024-01-26T07:37:00.000-08:002024-01-28T08:56:42.765-08:00NOT SO FAST (CORRECTED)<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The first
two primary elections of the year are behind us, the Republican caucus in Iowa,
and the primary election in New Hampshire and both have resulted in large,
double digit, victories for Donald Trump. The next primary will be held in
South Carolina on February 3, where polls indicate that Trump has a 63% lead, with
Nevada, where Trump will run virtually uncontested, following on February 6. If
not before, the Republican primary contest is likely to be decided on March 5,
Super Tuesday, when 17 State primaries will be held, including the major ones
in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. With
the Republican primary reduced to a two-candidate race, Donald Trump versus
Nikki Haley, Trump has a 45-point advantage over his remaining opponent in the
remaining State primaries and, at this time, it appears that all Trump must do
to secure the Republican nomination is staying alive and out of jail.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">Counterintuitively,
the overwhelming appearance of dominance and inevitability of a Trump victory
in the primaries does not translate in a repeat pattern for the general
election in November. A look into the numbers behind Trump’s big wins in Iowa
and New Hampshire provides the first reason why the predictive value of these
wins for the Presidential election in November is minimal, if not zero. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">If we look
at the Iowa caucus first, we see that Trump only collected 56,260 votes from
752,200 registered Republican voters in the State. The vast majority of
Republicans stayed home (the weather was nasty) and of the 110,298 voters who
came out, Trump collected only 51% of their votes. In other words, 49% of the
Republican voters in the Iowa caucus preferred someone else than Trump as their
nominee for the presidency.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">In New
Hampshire the results for Trump were not much better. While among registered
Republicans Trump trounced Nikki Haley by 74% versus 25%, with registered
Independents the roles were reversed with Haley collecting 64% of the votes
against Trump with 35%. As much as Trump ended up winning the New Hampshire
Republican primary by 54% of the vote, the numbers show that 25% of Republican
voters refused to vote for him and that among registered Independents he was
trounced by Nikki Haley. Independents represented 44% of the votes cast in the
New Hampshire primary. According to the exit polls, 6% of the voters were self-declared
Democrats and 95% of them voted for Haley. 35% of the Haley voters said that
they would not vote for Trump in the general election.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">We need to
keep in mind that we were witnessing Republican pre-elections here and that
Trumps opponents in these contests were other Republican candidates. Democrats
are essentially out of the picture, other than that in a number of States they are allowed to vote in Republican primaries. But there
are no Democrats to vote for in these elections.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">The way to
look at the results in Iowa and New Hampshire is that ten months ahead of the
general election Trump has the uncontested support of only 50-75% of Republican
voters and no more than 35% of Independent voters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">Donald Trump
collected roughly 74 million votes in his 2020 race against Joe Biden, who
collected roughly 81 million votes. In the likely repeat contest for 2024 he
cannot afford to lose any part of the electorate that came out for him in 2020.
In that election only 6% of Registered Republicans voted against him. Even
though many Republican voters who voted against him in the primaries may vote
for him when their choice is between Trump or Biden, he really cannot afford to
lose any of them (by staying home or voting for someone else) if he wants to do
better against Biden in 2024 than he did in 2020. Similarly, he cannot afford
to lose the support of any of the 41% of Independents who voted for him in 2020.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">That’s why
I’m saying: Not So Fast! Trump has surely conquered any Republican opposition.
He has consolidated his base and his vise grip on the Republican party. But, to
what avail?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">If you, like
I do, believe that a resounding Trump defeat in the 2024 Presidential election
is required to preserve the constitutional republican democracy in America, you
can find solace in the numbers beneath the primary results and in the following
facts and likelihoods:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%; text-indent: -0.25in;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%; text-indent: -0.25in;">Trump
on top of the Republican ticket has yet to prove a winning proposition. He
would most likely not have made it to the White House in 2016 if Hillary
Clinton had seriously campaigned in Michigan and Wisconsin, Jim Comey had not
made a last-minute about face and Russia had not interfered in our elections.</span><!--[if !supportLists]--></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">He
has centered his campaign on revenge and retribution, ingratiating his MAGA
base but alienating about everybody else. He does not seem to realize that he
starts off with a 7 million vote deficit and would need to expand his support
base.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">His
legal challenges, including one or more possible criminal convictions ahead of
Election Day, will impact his chances negatively.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">His
record and campaign rhetoric will cast the upcoming election as a contest
between constitutional republican democracy and populist authoritarianism and only
fools bet against deep seated democratic values instilled in the American
voting public.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">
</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 9pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">Wild
cards are the age, health, and cognitive capacities of the contenders who are
both well over the age of prime performance and, relatedly, the turnout of the
young vote.</span><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><!--[if !supportLists]--></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><!--[if !supportLists]--></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-43356081420983829102023-12-15T09:08:00.000-08:002023-12-15T09:08:57.368-08:00LIZ<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">In the epilogue
to Liz Cheney’s just released book ‘Oath and Honor’ she writes: “As a nation,
we can endure damaging policies for a four-year term. But we cannot survive a
president willing to terminate our Constitution.” It is as remarkable as it is
encouraging that a die-hard conservative and life-long Republican is willing to
suspend her ideological beliefs in favor of creating a (temporary and
single-purpose) pro-democracy and anti-authoritarian coalition with Democrats
and Independents who share her belief in the overarching necessity to preserve
our constitutional Republic. I assume Liz realizes that, if she gets her way,
she may have to endure ‘damaging policies’ not for a four-year term, but for a
full eight years of a Democrat in the White House and yet, she does not blink. She
is still wrestling with the question what she can do, other than voicing her
fierce opposition against Trump and his acolytes as she has done in several
capacities and in her book, to convince the public to unequivocally reject authoritarianism
when they go to the voting booth in November of next year.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The first
primaries, the Iowa caucus on January 15, the New Hampshire primary on January
23, the South Carolina primary on February 24, and the Super Tuesday primaries
on March 5 will show if, as polling suggests, Trump will be the Republican
nominee for the 2024 Presidential election. If the conventional wisdom prevails
and Trump is on his way to become his party’s candidate, Liz Cheney will have
to decide if she wants to oppose him directly by running against him. She has
repeatedly declared that she is willing to do so if it appears that her
opposition would likely help keeping Trump out of the White House for a second
term. That will be a difficult calculation to make. She will not run to win. Her
sole purpose would be to siphon enough electoral votes away from Trump to deny
him the 270 he will need to become President for a second term. But her
participation in the race, together with other independent or third-party
candidates, would present a realistic possibility that none of the contenders
obtain the threshold 270 electoral votes, in which case the election would be
thrown to the House of Representatives, where each State would have one vote and
each state delegation would vote en bloc. Currently, 26 States have a majority
Republican delegation, 22 States have a majority Democratic delegation, and 2
States have an equally divided delegation. The uniquely American constitutional
provision that gives each of the States only one vote when the House is called
upon to elect the President places, as Liz Cheney herself has stressed,
exceptional weight on the election for the House of Representatives. Little
doubt that, if the current constellation holds, the vote will go in favor of
the Republican nominee, but a little shift towards the Democrats in the 2024
election could alter that picture. Just like in the American system the
President can be elected by a minority of the voting public, it is possible for
one of the parties in Congress to have a numerical majority in the House of
Representatives without having the votes to elect the President if the election
is thrown to the House.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Given this
uncertainty, my speculation is that Liz Cheney will not herself contest the
2024 Presidential Election but work very hard on building a coalition of
Democrats, Independents, and Trump-averse Republicans to defeat Trump even if
it means that the presidency is delivered to the Democratic candidate. What she
will do in the unlikely case that the Republicans nominate someone else than Trump
remains to be seen, but in that case, she will definitely not run for the
office herself and less likely support the Democratic nominee. Although she says
for now to be single focused on the 2024 race and the defeat of Trump, she has
made it abundantly clear that she is done with the Republican party that has kicked
her out of Congress and refused to hold Trump to account for his refusal to support
the Constitution, concede defeat, and arrange a peaceful transfer of power. In several
of the many book-interviews she has given since her book was published, she has
informed us that, after November 2024, she will explore with other like-minded
conservatives the feasibility of either taking back control of the GOP or creating
a new, truly republican and truly conservative party.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">At this
point it is way too early to say if Liz Cheney’s crusade to preserve democracy
in the USA will prevail. If we could believe current polling, she is fighting
an uphill battle as poll after poll suggests that Trump is a shoo-in for the
GOP nomination and a favorite over Biden in the battle states that will decide this
election. But there is a lot of fight in Liz Cheney, and she will not be alone
in the fight to the finish. She is capable of mobilizing a coalition for
democracy from all those Republicans who already have borne witness to the
threat Trump poses to the functioning of our democratic republic, Democrats,
and Independents. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">I am
confident that when the moment of truth arrives and Americans fill out their
ballots for the November 5, 2024 election, they will realize that the only
choice in front of them is between a fully democratic and an autocratic form of
government. A choice between the Constitution and chaos. And I’m confident that
at that moment a large majority of them will unambiguously decide for democracy
over autocracy. If that comes to pass, it will in no small part be thanks to
the profile in courage exhibited by Liz Cheney, the rare politician who valued
honor and constitutionality over her political career.</span><o:p></o:p></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-43993779222935840172023-11-15T08:27:00.000-08:002023-11-15T08:27:48.390-08:00TWO HARVARD PROFESSORS<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Steven
Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt are two Harvard professors of government and
co-authors of two books that are addressing the causes of the ever more evident
shortcomings in the American experiment in democracy. The books are “How
Democracies Die” published in 2018 and “Tyranny of the Minority” published this
year.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">For anyone
who is interested in understanding why politics in America have become so
dysfunctional and why America has been sliding down the scale of the most
democratically governed nations in the world, these two books are highly
recommended reading. In fact, they should be mandatory reading in political
science classes at the high school and college level.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The authors
put much of the blame for the slide in America’s standing among the world's
democracies to what they term “excessively counter-majoritarian institutions”
including the fact that updates to the US Constitution have become nearly
impossible to make. The authors point to many other countries where, over time,
counter majoritarian elements have been removed, one after the other, from
their governance structure.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">While
acknowledging that, just because of the existence of excessively counter-majoritarian
institutions, required changes in the American public governance system are difficult
to make, the authors point to the fact that America has in the past proven that
it is capable of making previously considered impossible changes in the rules
of its government e.g. when it abolished slavery, when it enshrined civil
rights, when it established women’s right to vote, and when it transferred the
right to elect the Senate from State Legislatures to the People of America.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">In their book
“Tyranny of the Minority” the two Harvard professors offer 15 practical
suggestions for further democratization of the American political process that
I quote hereunder (with only a few edits for brevity). The recommendations are
grouped under three major headlines: Uphold the right to vote; Ensure that
election outcomes reflect majority preferences; and Empower governing
majorities. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Here they are:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">UPHOLD
THE RIGHT TO VOTE<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Pass a constitutional amendment
establishing a right to vote for all citizens, which would provide a solid base
to litigate voting restrictions.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Establish automatic registration in which
all citizens are registered to vote when they turn eighteen.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Expand early voting and easy mail-in
voting options for citizens of all states.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Make Election Day a Sunday or a national
holiday, so that work responsibilities do not discourage Americans from voting.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Restore voting rights (without additional
fines or fees) to all ex-felons who have served time.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Restore national-level voting rights
protections. Reinstate federal oversight of election rules and administration.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Replace the current system of partisan
electoral administration with one in which state and local electoral
administration is in the hands of professional, nonpartisan officials.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">ENSURE
THAT ELECTION OUTCOMES REFLECT MAJORITY PREFERENCES<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Abolish the Electoral College and replace
it with a national popular vote.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Reform the Senate so that the number of
senators elected per state is more proportional to the population of each
state.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">10.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Replace “first-past-the-post” electoral
rules and single member districts for the House of Representatives and state
legislatures with a form of proportional representation in which voters elect
multiple representatives from larger electoral districts and parties win seats
in proportion to the share of vote they win. This would require repeal of the
1967 Uniform Congressional District Act, which mandates single-member districts
for House elections.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">11.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Eliminate partisan gerrymandering via the
creation of independent redistricting commissions such as those used in
California, Colorado, and Michigan.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">12.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Update the Apportionment Act of 1929,
which fixed the House of Representatives at 435, and return to the original
design of the House that expands in line with population growth.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">EMPOWER
GOVERNING MAJORITIES<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">13.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Abolish the Senate filibuster.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">14.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Establish term limits (perhaps twelve or
eighteen years) for Supreme Court justices to regularize the Supreme Court
appointment process so that every president has the same number of appointments
per term.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">15.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i>Make it easier to amend the Constitution
by eliminating the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify
any proposed amendment.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The push by two
Harvard professors is not enough to break the dam. What America needs now is a
nationwide popular movement, akin to the abolition movement, the suffragette
movement, and the civil rights movement, insisting on democratic reform of our
institutions, including the Constitution, and elimination of the remaining
counter-majoritarian institutions. For America to lead the world, it cannot
afford to be anything less than a model democracy. It was designed to be that
model when it adopted its Constitution in 1789, it now must catch up with the
rest of the world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-24705859112815174272023-11-02T08:01:00.000-07:002023-11-02T08:01:11.028-07:00A YEAR FROM NOW<p>The date for
the next national election, in which the White House, the House of
Representatives, one third of the Senate, State legislatures, and many State
governor seats are up for grabs is set for November 5, 2024. That is only a
year from now. It is no hyperbole to label next year’s election ‘the election
of the century’ even though many pundits named the 2020 election by the same
label. Then, like again next year, the main issue was a popular referendum on Trump
and Trumpism. Except that this time around it is even more clearly not so much a
vote between nominees of the two parties as a vote between governance doctrines.
2024 is shaping up as the year in which the American voters must make up their
mind if they are still intent on having a government of the People, by the
People, and for the People, or if they are willing to be autocratically
governed by an all-controlling executive branch.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 125%;">Yes, there
will also be elections this year, on the 7<sup>th</sup> of November, but none
of a national scope. Some may be bellwethers for how the 2024 elections may turn
out. In my State of Ohio, for instance, the main issue, issue #1 on the ballot
is a proposed constitutional amendment establishing “The Right to Reproductive
Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety”. This popular driven
initiative, which is opposed by the Republican DeWine administration, follows
the defeat, in August, of an administration driven initiative to require a
qualified majority of 60 percent and support in each of Ohio’s 80 counties for
a vote to amend the Ohio Constitution. For the proposed constitutional
amendment about Reproductive Freedom, a simple 51 percent of the popular vote
will be enough to pass. This ballot initiative is a popular reaction to the
passing in 2019 of a strict ‘heartbeat’ law by the heavily jerrymandered GOP
controlled Ohio legislature (which law is currently suspended pending judicial
review). In essence, the issue, in this election as in the big election of November
2024, is about the functioning of our democracy. Are we self-governing or
subject to the tyranny of a controlling minority?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 125%;">The campaign
around Ohio issue 1 brings to the surface the frightening degree of dishonesty
and deception condoned in political campaigns. Opponents of issue 1 want to
make you believe that the amendment for Reproductive Freedom will lead to horrifying
scenes of late term abortion butchering and unfettered access to abortion by juveniles,
completely ignoring the provision in the proposed amendment that abortion may
be prohibited after fetal viability and suspending belief in the high standards
of conduct by medical professionals and the ethical values of the American
people. On the other hand, the proponents of Ohio issue 1 are too easily papering
over the legitimate rights to protection of the unborn, scaring the voters with
an Orwellian ‘big brother’ government taking control of every aspect of our
lives, conveniently ignoring the democratic and judicial checks on governmental
excesses or abuses. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 125%;">With the
advent of A.I. and the dominance of social media in our lives, combined with
the near boundless interpretation of our first amendment rights of free speech,
it becomes very hard to determine who and what to believe anymore. Almost impossible
to separate fact from fiction when all sides, enabled by previously non-existent
information technology, are permitted to create their own alternative
realities. How can we expect people to make the right choice at the voting
booth when they can no longer determine what campaign rhetoric is false or mere
propaganda and what is factually correct?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The November 2024 election will be held at the confluence of
a legitimate policy debate about the management of the country’s business, its
finances, its national security, its political agenda, and its role in the
world and a fight for the soul of the nation fed by spurious identity politics:
will it be increasingly democratic or increasingly autocratic? With a scarcity
of unbiased, fact based, information on the choices on the ballot, people,
particularly those who are only casually attentive to policy choices, are
forced to rely on emotion, gut feel, and the voice of their preferred media
channels when making their fateful ballot choices. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A year out from the election, we can only expect that control
of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate will be
decided by extremely narrow margins. It is the nature of the beast: the
population of the United States is hopelessly divided in its partisan allegiance
and kept in place by its adherence to either Fox News or MSNBC. The stalemate this
political reality creates in Congress, combined with the rules that pertain to
the management of the agenda of the House and the Senate, means that there is
no room or incentive for a meaningful policy debate and thus, the peoples’
choice is forced back to identity politics. And the world is watching in
amazement and disbelief how one of its political parties is well on its way to place
its bets on a failed former President, who is twice impeached and three times
indicted for crimes committed in office and against the proper functioning of our
democracy. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is an outright depressing thought that, even if democracy
wins over autocracy in the 2024 election and the person who belongs in prison
is kept out of the White House, the chance for meaningful policy advancement
will remain stymied by a stalemate in Congress. It is not clear if and how this
impasse can be cleared. And the American people will be kept waiting for fiscal
responsibility on the part of its government, for a comprehensive immigration
policy, for climate protection, for gun safety regulation, and for diminished
inequality in income and wellness between segments of our society.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Depressing as this may be, we are well advised to accept
that we can win only one battle at a time. And, as former GOP congressman and
member of the January 6 Commission Adam Kinzinger recently said on a PBS
interview: “I consider there to be only one issue on the ballot for 2024, do
you believe in democracy or not?”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That will indeed be the challenge the American voters will have
to address a year from now.<o:p></o:p></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-22162570161138311962023-09-22T07:33:00.000-07:002023-09-22T07:33:17.446-07:00THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">We are all
familiar with the saying “What is good for the goose is good for the gander” (a
gander is a male goose). </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">It is meant to
say that if a boy is allowed to do something, a girl should be allowed to do
the same thing. The saying was put in practice most notably when women were allowed to vote, when colored people were
afforded the same rights as Caucasians, and when the military allowed women to
serve in combat roles. It </span><b style="font-size: 11pt;">does not</b><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> mean that if something is good for a
certain segment of the population, it is automatically also good for everyone
else (for that we use the saying that “The rising tide lifts all boats”). So, if
we think of the goose and the gander in terms of the political reality of the two-party
system in the United States, it is evident that what serves the interest of the
Democratic Party does not serve the interest of the Republican Party as well.
In our two-party system it is a zero-sum game. The national interest in a truly
representative democracy is taking a backseat in this partisan contest. And
herein lies the problem.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">There is no
denying that the current American political constellation is dysfunctional. It
has been for a good while, but never more so than today, now that one of the
two parties has decided not to be guided by the Constitution but by the whims
of a narcissistic, populist, leader. That party is in complete disarray with
House Republicans and the Speaker of the House held hostage by a handful of
populist extremists and House Republicans at odds with Senate Republicans on
vital issues like the funding of the government, the budget, and support for
Ukraine. Almost certainly this disarray will result in another shutdown of the
government when on September 30 the current fiscal year expires. This
internecine squabble would not be as damaging if it was not for the additional
dimension that a substantial segment of the Republican Party signals that it is
ready to forego democracy as the governing principle for the nation</span>. Republican
lawmakers are making no bones about this when they say: “we are a republic, not
a democracy” as if there was a contradiction in terms between the two. When
saying this they are clearly echoing the sentiment of their cult leader who has
repeatedly maintained that when you are the President you can call all the
shots even if they are illegal or unconstitutional. L’etat c’est moi!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This dysfunction brings me back to the goose and the gander.
As I have stated many times before, there is no lack of ideas about ways in
which our system of government can be improved, and democracy can be protected
from subversion by authoritarian impulses. Most prominently in these deliberations
figure the elimination of the Electoral College and electing the President by a
direct national popular vote, expanding the number of seats in the House of
Representatives, putting term limits in place for members of Congress, eliminating
the “filibuster Rule” in the Senate, taking money out of politics, and eliminating
the practice of jerrymandering from the creation of voting districts. The
problem with all these suggestions, and the reason that none of them have ever
gained traction, is that implementation of any of them requires, if not
amendment of the Constitution itself, amendment of established federal and
State laws, procedural rules set by Congress, or abandoning age-old covenants
and practices. The hurdles to fundamental improvement of the system of public
governance in the United States are so high that even the most obvious ways to
improve the system have no chance of getting implemented. First, the hurdle for
a change in the Constitution requiring a qualified 2/3<sup>rd</sup> majority of
votes in both Houses of Congress and ratification by 75% of the legislatures of
the States of the Union, is so high that it cannot be achieved without complete
bi-partisan support. In effect this means that going forward only innocuous,
largely symbolic, amendments will ever have a chance to pass. Under current
conditions, the avenue of using amendments to the Constitution as a means of
improving public governance is closed off.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The next, equally obstructive, hurdle is in the construct of
a two-party system, where the parties have roughly equal support. Every measure
that we can think of if we want to improve the system by enhancing both
democracy and effectiveness has a calculable impact on the electoral chances
for each of the two parties. It is a zero-point game. If it benefits the
Democrats, it hurts Republicans and vice-versa. Take jerrymandering which has
largely enabled Republican popular minorities to achieve majorities in State
legislatures. Prohibiting jerrymandering will hurt Republicans and benefit
Democrats. So would elimination of the Electoral College and election of the
President by direct national popular vote. Similarly, expanding the number of
seats in the House of Representatives will give more representation to the
larger population zones and thus enhance the prospects for Democrats, hurting
the Republicans. Taking money out of politics and imposing term limits on
members of Congress are less predictable in their impact on electoral chances
for each of the parties, but will, in the unlikely event that they will ever
come up for consideration, still be judged on their deliverable for the
political future of both parties. I am hard pressed finding a system
improvement that would result in a clear benefit to the Republicans and a
disadvantage to the Democrats and conclude from that that the current system favors
the Republicans and allows them to turn popular vote deficiencies into majority
representation in Congress as well as in State Legislatures. In other words,
the current system turns minority protection into minority advantage.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The only way to make the American political system more
democratic is by lowering the hurdles to system improvement. A voting rights
bill has been languishing in Congress for years under the Trump and Biden
administrations. But unless both parties rededicate themselves to making the
Union a more perfect democracy it is unlikely to ever become law. In American
politics, this day and age, if it is good for the goose, it is not good for the
gander!<o:p></o:p></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-53851742878061730942023-08-15T11:22:00.000-07:002023-08-15T11:22:58.062-07:0015 MONTHS<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Mark the
date: Election Day 2024 is November 5. That is 447 days, a little less than 15
months, away and a lot can happen in the intervening time that will determine
the viability, the intrinsic strength, of the American democracy. Benjamin
Franklin was prophetic when, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention
he was asked “What have you wrought?” and he answered “a Republic if you can
keep it”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The
Presidential election of 2024 will be like no other in American history because
we now know that the main contender on the part of the Republican Party will have
to defend against four separate criminal indictments in addition to three civil
cases in which he is the defendant, all of that while campaigning for the
Republican nomination at the Republican convention in mid July 2024 in
Milwaukee. If he is nominated, there is a realistic chance that he will be
convicted of any of the 91 felony charges now levied against him in four
different jurisdictions before the voters will be asked to pass their verdict.
He may even find himself in jail on Election Day.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Further
uncertainty is inserted into the process by the fact that the two most likely
contenders for the Presidency will be in their late seventies and early
eighties respectively and neither one of them is granted eternal life. It is a
whole different matter, but it should concern all of us that American public
governance is in the hands of so many politicians who have very little time
left to experience for themselves the far-reaching policy decisions they make
while in office. We can expect a forceful rejection by the younger voters of the
dominance of their grandparents’ generations in Congress and in the race for
the White House. Can the same people who have been complicit in building an
insurmountable mountain of public debt and have refused to address the nation’s
major challenges of climate protection, entitlement reform, gun control, immigration
control, inequities in healthcare and education, and, most importantly, voting
rights, be trusted with the responsibility to solve these matters for the
future?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The voters
in the 2024 election now must wake up to the astonishing revelation that no
provision in our much-revered Constitution prohibits a convicted felon from
ascending to the Presidency of the United States of America. Clearly, it has
been beyond the imagination of our founding fathers and the authors of our
Constitution that voters would ever elect a convicted criminal to the highest
office in the land or even vote for a candidate who is standing trial for
conspiracy to defraud the United States. Yet, the Constitution does not leave
the people of the United States entirely without protection against the risk of
putting an undeserving candidate in the White House (or any other civil or
military office of the United States or any State of the nation). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Section 3 of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution bars any person from taking office
who, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United
States, has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">In the 155-year
history of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 has not been invoked against any
candidate running for election to the Presidency of the United States. And it
is not clear who would have legal standing to sue for disqualification of a
candidate on the grounds of having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against
the United States. Certainly the U.S. Department of Justice as the guardian of U.S.
laws, but also any contenders or the political party they represent? No doubt
any pursuit of the applicability of Section 3 to a candidate for the U.S.
Presidency will have to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court. With the
four indictments in place against one of the contenders for the 2024
Presidential Election, the first question to come up will be whether any of the
alleged charges against the candidate amount to insurrection or rebellion
against the United States. It will be intriguing to find out how the current
justices on the Supreme Court, three of whom have been nominated to the court
by the indicted contender, will answer that pivotal question.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Much as we may
be miffed by the fact that no provision of the law, other than Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment, prevents a convicted criminal from getting elected to the
Presidency, it is even more incredible that public opinion itself does not
appear to disqualify the four-time indicted contender. On the contrary, his
standing in the polls has gone up with each of the three earlier indictments.
As of this writing it is too early to gauge if the fourth indictment will
change the polls, but it does not look likely that it will keep the defendant
in these indictments from prevailing in the primaries and obtaining the
nomination of his Republican Party.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">This alone
should cause us to pause and reflect. If a good part of our population can live
with the prospect of having a person accused of felonies against the republic placed
in the White House, it is a good indication that those people vie for an
authoritarian approach to public governance, democracy be damned. It confirms
our fear and suspicion that the 2024 election will not just be a contest of
personalities and parties, but a referendum on the American system of public
governance, whether it should be democratic or autocratic. With the evidence we
have in hand we have compelling reason to conclude that going into this
election cycle we have one ‘democratic’ and one ‘autocratic’ party. As per our
Constitution, the choice is up to the People, 447 days from today.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">But a lot
can change in 15 months. Stay tuned.<o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-42898739515527636412023-07-10T08:48:00.000-07:002023-07-10T08:48:11.899-07:00250 YEARS<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Who will
preside over the 250</span><sup>th</sup><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> birthday of America on July 4, 2026? And will
we still be living in the world’s leading democracy on that day? My
overwhelming concern today is that too many Americans no longer care about
democracy as long as the candidate of their choice comes out on top.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Like
millions of Americans, I watched the pageantry of the 4<sup>th</sup> of July
celebrations on the Mall and the steps of the Capitol this week and, for an
evening, felt good about America. The flags, the music, the fireworks, and,
most of all, the crowd occupying the iconic spaces of Capitol Hill Parks gave
the impression that America cares, that it honors its past and is eager to carry
its heritage forward. On moments like that, you want to believe that what
unfolds before your eyes is representative of the national mood and that democracy
is alive and well, but the next day it does not exactly look that way. If
anything tangible should come from these moments of euphoria, it would be that we
make Election Day a national holiday and, by doing so, make it abundantly clear
that there is no higher cause to celebrate than the solemn act of voting for who
to represent us in government. There is never going to be a better time to make
this happen than in 2026 when we celebrate 250 years of national existence.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">But first we
have to get there. Momentous events await us on our way to the quarter-millennial
celebration. I wish it wasn’t so, but more likely than not we will be trying a
former President who is also a current Presidential Candidate in criminal court
and then we will have to see if the nation is ready to put that same person
back into the White House. We will have to see if, despite the extreme polarization
in our politics, we can find a jury of 12 people who are all willing to toss
their political preference aside and pass impartial judgment on a former President
some of them will have voted for and may want to vote for again in 2024. And it
looks like a near certainty that, whichever way these momentous matters will be
decided, half the population will feel cheated by the outcome.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">How much
better off would we have been if, to prepare for and honor the 250</span><sup>th</sup><span style="font-size: 11pt;">
anniversary of our republic, we had committed to critically evaluating our
public governance model, decide what works and did not quite work as intended,
all with an eye on perfecting our republican democratic model. We could even
have decided to hold a new constitutional convention to revisit the foundational
principles of a multi-state democratic republic in today’s day and age and
submit to popular vote a revised Constitution that is, better than the current
version, equipped to address the exigencies and realities of the world we live
in today and in the foreseeable future. The harsh reality is that we are so
consumed by the political acrimony of the moment that nobody’s eyes are on an
opportunity to make our 250</span><sup>th</sup><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> anniversary meaningful in our constant
strive to perfect our union.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">An update of
the Constitution alone would not redress all the flaws that stand in the way of
a functioning republican democracy. We need to ask ourselves how it is that
Congress, the legislative branch of government, is incapable or unwilling to
address the most pressing societal needs of a fiscally responsible management
of the nation’s finances, protection against the proliferation of guns, an
orderly management of immigration needs, and universal access to affordable,
state of the art, healthcare, and education. We can rightfully complain about the
Supreme Court doing away with affirmative action in higher education and blocking
the executive branch from providing relief from a stifling student debt burden,
but we need to realize that the Supreme Court only gets to rule on these
matters because Congress has not made any attempt to resolve them in the
legislative process. With a “do nothing” Congress it is inevitable that both
the executive branch and the judicial branch of government step in to fill the
void. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Patience
pays off. With little fanfare and somewhat under the radar the sponsors of the
right wing of the conservative movement have, over many years, filled the ranks
of State Legislatures and the Judiciary with candidates of their choosing. Their
patience paid off big time when, against all odds and against the popular vote,
Trump got placed in the White House and three vacancies opened up at the
Supreme Court during his time in office. In quick order, the Supreme Court was
stacked with three adherents of the Heritage Foundation with the effect that many
Supreme Court rulings have pushed the law of the land far to the right of what
a functional Congress would have been able to legislate. An ineffectual
Congress handcuffs a President and shifts power to the Supreme Court that has
the authority to further limit the executive power of the President but is,
itself, unaccountable to the public.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">We have only
three years to go before we reach the 250<sup>th</sup> birthday of our
republic. We should not be satisfied with the status quo. We would honor our
past by dedicating ourselves to improving our public governance, our democracy,
for the future. Improvement will have to start with Congress. It will help a
great deal if the House of Representatives would be expanded to reflect
population growth by State since 1927 when House membership was set at 435. If,
at the same time gerrymandering can be outlawed and money influences can be
severely limited, we could make some real progress towards a better functioning
democracy. We simply must find a way to make Congress do the job it has been
assigned by the Constitution: legislate us out of trouble by addressing, one by
one, the significant challenges confronting our political, economic, and social
lives.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Let’s make
sure that on July 4, 2026 we have real reason to celebrate!</span><o:p></o:p></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-78433950529557648002023-06-06T08:56:00.000-07:002023-06-06T08:56:27.477-07:00SUCCESSION<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">This week
the American TV viewing public has watched the season finale of the HBO series
Succession that, for four seasons, rendered a view of the excesses of modern-day
capitalism in a story about generational succession at Waystar-Royco, a fictional
family operated company in the global media business. Many elements of this
show hinted at the generational transition issue our nation will have to
address at the end of the first (and only?) term of the Biden administration.
The patriarch in the TV series, Logan Roy, is about Biden’s age when he dies
without having settled the matter of his succession. Is it coincidence that
this TV series has run for four seasons, the same term as the Presidential tenure?
And the series ends when Waystar’s media unit ATN prematurely declares the
winner in a closely contested Presidential race in which a hapless member of
the Roy tribe unsuccessfully contended.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">As this
drama played itself out, we witnessed in reality TV a rare moment of
bi-partisanship in the governance of nation’s affairs when the President and
the Speaker of the House worked out a compromise on the conditions for lifting
the debt ceiling for the federal treasury and, more uniquely and importantly,
got significant bi-partisan majorities in the House and the Senate to sign off
on the deal and stave off a calamitous national default. The President, in a prime-time televised victory lap, presented
the deal as just another bi-partisan policy success of his administration, in
line with the American Rescue Plan and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, but this one was different. While his previous significant policy initiatives passed
with full Democratic support and a few Republican defections, this measure was
carried by majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the
Senate. What we have learned from this unique moment in American politics is
that when it comes to asserting the full faith and credit of the Unites States,
we still have a solid measure of unity in the Beltway. Another way of putting
this is that when an existential American interest and value was at stake,
majorities in both parties chose national interest over partisan preference.
The question now is whether this lofty attitude adjustment can be carried over
in the resolution of other items of existential national interest. Nothing more
existential than the preservation of liberal democracy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">It should
cause us to pause in a moment of disbelief: that we are living at a time where
bedrock principles of American statecraft like the full faith and credit of the
United States and the democratic underpinning of our public governance system
are even put in question. And yet, it becomes clearer by the day that this is
what the 2024 national election will be about. It should not be that way. In a
better world we would have two indisputably democratic parties competing with diverging
ideas about how to secure Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for the
future; how to reform our tax laws so that they make sure that everyone pays their
fair share and that they generate enough revenue to cover the expense of a
responsible government; how then to begin to whittle down the national debt
that both parties have allowed to balloon to unsustainable proportion; how to
stem the tide of gun killings; how to codify a common sense immigration policy
that accommodates the needs of our economy, creates a path to lawful residency for
the millions of undocumented aliens already residing and working in the country,
and has a compassionately pragmatic and consistent approach to the embrace of
refugees; and how to improve the American healthcare system in ways that brings
the cost in line with similar systems in the rest of the free world and
delivers outcomes that place the nation back on top of world rankings. Responsible
political parties vying for the support of their constituents should compete
with the best ideas they can come up with to address these challenges to
America’s future. Unfortunately, the Republican Party chose not to present a
platform for the 2020 election, and it looks doubtful that it will come up with
one for the next succession battle. That is no way to serve a country!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">There are
more parallels between the succession scenarios in the HBO drama versus our
political reality. In both instances there is no dearth of candidates for the
top job and in both instances, it is unclear how they differentiate themselves
from their competitors. In the succession battle for the White House the
contest is likely not to be about any of the policy issues that for years have
been begging for resolution, but instead be a referendum on democracy versus
autocracy or, as David Brooks recently posited in a column in the New York
Times, “a contest between an essentially moral vision and an essentially
immoral one, a contest between decency and its opposite.” It has come to this,
because the Republican Party has traded in a conservative agenda for identity
politics to accommodate a populist imposter who has hijacked the party in 2016
and has held it hostage ever since. That party is well on its way to repeating
the mistake of 2016 when so many contenders vied for the ticket that the
imposter ran away with it because his opposition split the primary vote in too
many meaningless pieces.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The one
thing you cannot blame the imposter for is that he says one thing and does
another. You can take him at his word, terrible as it is. His open admiration
for autocrats like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jing Pin, Viktor Orbán, and Recep
Tayyip Erdogan and their modus operandi leave nothing to our imagination. He
has openly spoken about ‘retribution’ for the people who stood in his way when
he attempted to nullify his loss at the voting booth in 2020. And he has
promised to pardon the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and other deviates who
participated in the January 6 insurrection. America simply cannot afford a 2024
succession resulting in his return to the White House. Fooled once, shame on
him; fooled twice shame on us.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">P.S. this
column gets published on the 79<sup>th</sup> anniversary of D-Day when we
commemorate the nation’s preparedness to fight for a free and democratic society
in the Western world.</span><o:p></o:p></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-55681170303088933462023-04-25T09:22:00.000-07:002023-04-25T09:22:54.196-07:00OLD NEWS<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">As the
improbable begins to look more and more probable, that America’s choice for the
White House in 2024 is going to be between a late septuagenarian and an early
octogenarian, there isn’t much new to write about, also because it is a year
without national elections. While most of the time no news is good news, I
don’t see it that way in this instance. Of course, there are interesting little
tidbits to write about, like the ethics (or lack thereof) of justice Clarence
Thomas – Anita Hill saw that in 1991 much better than Joe Biden – or the
victory of Dominion Voting Systems over Fox News leading to a little bit of a
bloodletting for Rupert Murdoch’s company and the unceremonious sacking of
Tucker Carlson, but really nothing of consequence. As I’ve stated before, the nation
and the world are kept in a state of suspense. In the meantime, the state of
our democracy requires action and reinforcement that isn’t coming. America is
limping along with only one functioning party and a cult-like populist movement
that is harking back to the good old days of white Christian supremacy, bigotry,
book banning, chauvinism, and xenophobia.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">No news is
bad news. What we keep waiting for is an unequivocal repudiation by the
American People of the authoritarian streak that was the hallmark of Trump’s presidency
and that has since metastasized all through the Republican Party. Trump and his
followers are dying for a second term in office so that he can finish the work,
shatter the ‘deep state’, finish the border wall, and keep all immigrants out
indefinitely, deploy military power domestically against any street opposition,
replace public with patriotic education, and create Mussolini style ‘Freedom
Cities’ on public land.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">What we are
waiting for is for the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, and his team to finish
their work and finally advise the Department of Justice to hold Trump criminally
accountable for his attempts to subvert the democratic underpinnings of our constitutional
republican system of government.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">What we keep
waiting for is a mandate from the American people to strengthen our democracy</span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">−</span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">and protect it from future attempts to subvert it</span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">−</span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;"> by simple common-sense steps like expanding the House of
Representatives, automatic voter registration, banning gerrymandering, making
Election Day a National Holiday, and eliminating the ‘winner takes all’ rule in
the apportioning of State Electors to the Electoral College.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">In sum, what
we keep waiting for is a clear signal from the American People that it has no
tolerance for antics that put us on a slide path towards authoritarianism of
the kind that we have seen happening to the Weimar Republic, and in modern
times to Russia, Belarus, Hungary, Turkey, and Poland. Odds are that this
signal will come in due time, if not conclusively in 2024, over the next
election cycles. The reason
for this optimism is found in the peculiarity of the American election system
where few people vote in the primaries and, as things stand today, GOP
contenders are chanceless if they fail to capture the MAGA faithful. This
forces Republicans running for office to espouse extreme populist (I
deliberately don’t use the word ‘conservative’ here) positions on issues like abortion,
critical race theory, book banning, and LBGTQ rights, where they will veer far
away from public opinion, thus making them less electable in a general election.
The youth vote, that represents an ever-increasing part of the voting public
and has already shown in recent elections to be strongly averse to MAGA rhetoric,
will have to save the day. Which is only appropriate since the future belongs
to them even if octogenarians and septuagenarians are slugging it out in the
battle for the White House and are still disproportionally represented in
Congress.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">It is old
news, a little tired and less than uplifting, but the best chance to keep the
Republic as intended by the Founding Fathers is to let the MAGA flame burn
itself out by forcing Republican contenders for public office to take ever more
extreme positions that are sure to alienate all but the most Trumpist fanatics
in the voting public.<o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-50696727821872838452023-03-15T07:45:00.000-07:002023-03-15T07:45:56.268-07:00IN SUSPENSE<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">On this Ides
of March America finds itself in a time and state of suspense. So many balls are
up in the air, keeping the nation on pins and needles:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 125%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Winter has
yet to turn into spring.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="line-height: 125%;">We are
awaiting the outcome of the NY State grand jury investigation of the former US
President in the case of the hush money paid to silence porn star Stormy
Daniels.</span><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="line-height: 125%;">We are
awaiting the findings of the Georgia State special grand jury investigating
whether the former President and his allies committed any crimes while trying
to overturn his 2020 election loss.</span><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="line-height: 125%;">We are
awaiting the findings of special counsel Jack Smith in the Department of
Justice probe into </span><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;">the
former President’s handling of highly sensitive classified documents he
retained at his Florida resort Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House in
January 2021 and his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election's
results, including a plot to submit phony slates of electors to block Congress
from certifying Democrat Joe Biden's victory.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The Supreme Court will
decide before this summer whether the theory of ‘independent state legislature’
is supported by the US Constitution and, if it does, confer on state
legislatures plenary, exclusive power to redraw congressional districts for
federal elections and appoint state electors who cast the votes for President
and Vice President on behalf of, but not necessarily in concert with, the
voters of the states.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">A US District Judge in Amarillo,
TX , appointed by the former President, is expected to issue a ruling any day
now that may impose a nationwide injunction on the distribution of the abortion
pill mifepristone.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The civil suit issued by
Dominion Voting Systems against the Fox News Channel will either come to trial
in April or be settled between the parties. The suit, if it proceeds, will
determine if the media channel can, with impunity, misinform the viewing public
if it wants to conform its news reporting to the prevailing biases of its
audience and thus protect its viewership and ratings.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The nation keeps
teetering at the brink of a recession as the Federal Reserve tries to figure
out if it can bring inflation under control without bringing the economy to a
dead stop and exacerbating the financial crisis that torpedoed the Silicon
Valley Bank and now threatens contagion.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The acrimony between the
two political parties has risen to the level where it looks uncertain if
Congress will be able to raise the debt ceiling as required to avoid a default
on the national debt, which is predicted to happen sometime this summer if a political
compromise is not enacted upon. The American public has good reasons to be on
edge as the consequences of a national default are unimaginably dire. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">In the meantime, the
nation is gearing up for the primary campaigns for the 2024 Presidential
election at least at the Republican side (with the Democrats holding their
powder try until the current President decides if he will run for a second term.)
For the time being, the former President is still the front runner on the
Republican side, but it is very early in the game and his legal challenges may
ultimately have an impact on the outcome of the primary contests which will not
play out until the spring of next year.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The uncertainty caused
by all of these pending matters is ‘sans pareil’, without equal. What we are
watching is not simply a contest between a progressive and a conservative approach
to the future governance of the nation as it has been for all of our lifetime.
For the first time in recent history a populist, anti-democratic, movement,
triggered and espoused by a former President, is challenging the tenets of the
republican democracy and the Republican Party, so far, is refusing to deny it safe
harbor.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Our democratic experiment
that started in 1776 is in jeopardy of institutional breakdown by a politization
of the judiciary and an errant ideology infused in one of its two parties in
its legislature. America is holding its breath to find out how the crisis will unfold,
and the world watches us in bewilderment and with trepidation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #404040; line-height: 125%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">What is hanging in the
balance with all this uncertainty is America’s power to guide and influence
world affairs. The concept of ‘America First’ is not entirely misguided. Geopolitics
has not developed in a way that the world can safely afford to do without
American leadership. But it will prove impossible for America to exhibit global
leadership and be accepted in that role by the world community, if it cannot put
its own house in order. At a time when America is still the indispensable force
to guarantee the charters of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization it cannot fail in asserting its own republican democratic governance
system. It cannot allow the ‘full faith and credit’ of its sovereign debt to be
placed in doubt. And it cannot show its adversaries any internal division about
its support of nations whose territorial integrity and sovereign existence is
placed under attack by hostile neighbors.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #404040; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The nation will be in suspense for several more
months until each of these pending matters will have been decided, for better
or for worse, with monumental consequences for the future of America and the
world.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-73048659564944609062023-02-10T08:17:00.000-08:002023-02-10T08:17:17.411-08:00FROM SCRATCH<p>In science, technology, and business, if an experiment fails
or does not deliver the expected results, it gets scratched and the process
starts all over again. American republican democracy, created once the revolutionary
war was won, was very much an experiment. It had not been tried anywhere in the
world, with the exception, maybe, of ancient Athens, five hundred years before
Christ. Democracy is a concept, a way of doing business in the political arena.
It stands in contrast with autocracy. An autocracy governs from the top down, a
democracy governs from the bottom up. In an autocracy the rules are set for the
people by an unelected authority, in a democracy the people elect the authority
to set the rules for them. All of this is theory. How well or poorly a
democracy functions depends on the structure chosen for the implementation and
preservation of the democracy. The base of the structure supporting democracy
for the United States of America is the Constitution, which was approved by a
Constitutional Convention in 1787 and took effect in 1788 when the State of New
Hampshire ratified it. It has since been amended 27 times, the last time in
1992. The most important amendments of the Constitution pertain to the
insertion of a ‘bill of rights’ in 1791 and the election of Senators by direct
popular vote rather than appointment by State legislatures in 1913. The
structure of the institutions supporting democracy in the United States of
America has not changed since then.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Reverence for the Constitution is justifiably high. In the
judicial branch it manifests itself in the ‘originalist’ legal theory advocated
by the Federalist Society.<span style="background: white; color: #202124; font-family: Roboto;"> </span><span style="background: white; color: #202124; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Originalists believe that the
constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would
have had at the time that it became law.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> The originalist legal theory puts the
ideas of our founding fathers on a pedestal even though some of them have since
been proven misguided or untenable in today’s world. It ignores the insights and
changed realities developed over time during the two and a half centuries that
have passed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The indisputable fact that our political system is proving itself
to be incapable of addressing, by legislative action, the most pressing policy
issues of our time like the national debt, preservation of Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid, immigration, tax reform, climate change, voting rights, gun
control, police reform, and -in a broader sense- the untenable inequality, provides
a clear signal that democracy in the United States of America is not delivering
the expected results and that the great American experiment is failing. It is
time to jettison any originalist approach to the codification of the structure
of our democracy and review it with an eye on current conditions and the exigencies
of the future. In this, we need to recognize that the Constitution, while the
foundation of our political system, is only part of the structure of our
democracy that is further formed by executive, congressional, and judicial action
(precedents, traditions, rules and regulations) and the fact that in the US we
are dealing with a two-party system with parties of roughly equal size and
strength.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The question is: “If we had to do it all over again, what changes
in the political system would have to be considered to enhance our democracy with
an eye on producing results required for this day and age.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">There is a lot we want to preserve, because it has been serving us
well; there is a lot we are better off without; and there is a lot we should
put in place to improve our political system and in Benjamin Franklin’s words “keep
our republic”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">What we should preserve:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The three co-equal branches of government.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The bi-cameral federal legislature.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Term limited Presidency.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Bill of Rights, but with updated and
expanded language to cover contemporary norms.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">National election of the President, members of
the House of Representatives, and Senators.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">What we should get rid of:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Electoral College.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The filibuster rule in the Senate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Lifetime tenure for Supreme Court Justices.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The lid on the number of members of the House
of Representatives.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The two-party system.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">What we should put in place:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Term limits for members of Congress.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Limits on campaign contributions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Prohibition of gerrymandering.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Ranked voting for Congressional seats.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Uniform federal rules for voting access.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">A Constitutional requirement to balance the
federal budget.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">A Constitutional requirement for Congress to
articulate a national strategy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In my book “NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, A First-Generation Immigrant
in search of American Exceptionalism”, I argue that it is time for the voters
to exercise the people power to scratch the political structure that has
evolved over time and bring it ‘up to code’ for the exigencies of modern times.
To those who would argue that this would be too much heavy lifting, I say that
this nation has dealt with tougher challenges, when it had to. Remember what
Nelson Mandela said: “It always seems impossible, until it is done.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-37415021231610898852023-01-10T09:20:00.000-08:002023-01-10T09:20:12.291-08:00IT IS WHAT IT IS<p>I cringe when people say that to me. It signals resignation,
surrender, defeatism. And yet, after the deplorable Republican display at the
House of Representatives last week, the inescapable conclusion I arrive at when
it comes to the immediate future of the American political scene is: It is what
it is. As if this isn’t bad enough, the even more scary part is that it
portends to be getting much worse before we get a shot at repairing the damage
and safeguarding a functioning democracy. The next election is not until
November of 2024 and until then, ‘We The People’ are powerless to hold our
politicians accountable.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks to C-SPAN and the absence of rules governing the live
TV reporting of the proceedings in the House of Representatives (these rules
renew with each Congress and cannot be established until a speaker of the House
has been chosen) we got a good view of the ugliness of the power struggle
within the Republican caucus, the deep and prolonged humiliation Kevin McCarthy
was willing to accept in order to ultimately attain the coveted speakership, but
also the disciplined and dignified behavior of the House Chaplain, the Clerk of
the House, and a very unified Democratic caucus. What was hidden from view was
the detail of the concessions Kevin McCarthy had to make to get a hold of the
gavel. What is clear though is that, whatever conservative agenda McCarthy was already
planning to bring forward under his speakership will now be pushed further to
the extreme right, where it will be confronted with resistance from the
Democratic controlled Senate and the Presidential veto power. This means that
in terms of legislative work, the main job of a legislature, the 118<sup>th</sup>
Congress will not accomplish anything.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the battle for the speakership, Kevin McCarthy had a
choice to either seek the support of the 20 MAGA fanatics who would not accept
his leadership without holding it hostage to their extremist demands, in effect
gutting the speakership of any authority, or seek the support of moderates on
either side of the aisle who remain committed to good public governance and the
tenets of democracy. Knowing that he would be ostracized by his party if he would
resist the challenge from his right flank, he fatally made the wrong choice. He
put party before country and that is what we will have to live with for the
next two years, until we get back to the voting booth. Until then, It is what
it is.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The outcome of the speakership contest has made clear what
we can expect to come out of the House of Representatives during the 118<sup>th</sup>
Congress: A slate of messaging bills to assuage the MAGA constituency (which
will not go anywhere in the Democratic controlled Senate), and a tidal wave of
investigations into perceived misdeeds of the Biden administration, the FBI,
the IRS, the CDC, Dr. Fauci and, of course and with renewed fervor, Hunter
Biden. We can fully expect several impeachments, of President Biden and/or
members of his administration, to result from these investigations, if for
nothing else, as a tit for tat counter of the two Trump impeachments coming out
of the Pelosi led 117<sup>th</sup> Congress. All annoying and a distraction
from the job of addressing the ills that plague the nation, inequality,
immigration chaos, inflation, deficits, cyber insecurity, and threats to our
national security from a number of foreign sources. But the real menace of the
devilish alliance between Kevin McCarthy and his 20 opponents comes from the need,
sometime in 2023, for Congress to raise the debt-ceiling as necessary for the US
government to meet its financial obligations. Without it, the USA will default
on its debt with unimaginable consequences for the credit rating of the
country, the value of the dollar, the financial markets, and the national and
global economy. Yet, apparently, the speaker of the House has pledged to his
opponents in the GOP caucus that he will not introduce a bill to raise the
debt-ceiling without extracting large spending cuts in the already approved
budget for 2023, possibly including cuts in entitlement programs, military
spending, and aid to Ukraine. This will set up a clash between the House
Republicans and the White House and the question is who will blink first? Will Kevin
McCarthy get all of his caucus to follow him to the rim of the fiscal cliff or
over it, or will President Biden cave in to the demands of the speaker for the
sake of sparing the country the ultimate test of creditworthiness? Will Kevin
McCarthy still be speaker at decision time and will the composition of the
Congress still be the same as it is today? The margins of control are so narrow
that a number of deaths, resignations, or expulsions of members of Congress
could quickly change the balance of power.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bottomline is, ‘We The People’ are bystanders to what will
unfold in the Beltway over the next two years. It is out of our hands, because,
other than for an odd special election or primaries for the 2024 national
election, we will not have a chance to turn to the voting booth to let our
elected representatives know where we want them to lead us. It is what it is. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The date to focus on is Tuesday, November 5, 2024. The next
national election day. Regardless of who will be the contenders in that
election, it is shaping up as a contest between 1) those of us who believe that
a democratically constituted government should play an active role in shaping the
future of the nation and in creating a fair playing field for all of its constituents,
2) those who believe that government is the problem standing in the way of free
people to express themselves and determine their own destiny and the destiny of
the nation, and 3) those who believe that democracy has outlived its usefulness
and should be substituted by an authoritarian rule. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am squarely in the first camp, and I quietly hope that for
the sake of the nation the House Republicans will go overboard in their zeal to
undo the Biden/Pelosi agenda and punish the Democrats for their audacity to
craft bipartisan support for their major legislative achievements in the 117<sup>th</sup>
Congress. The crew that delivered the gavel to Kevin McCarthy, only after
extracting a steep price in concessions he initially pledged he would never
make, is more than likely to comply. If the Republican focus in the 118<sup>th</sup>
Congress is retribution rather than problem solving, we will be given a clear
compass for where to place our votes in 2024. In the meantime, whether we like
it or not, it is what it is.<o:p></o:p></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-49841548973003509182022-12-08T08:34:00.000-08:002022-12-08T08:34:06.065-08:00IT IS A CRIME<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">While we are
still waiting to see if the Special Counsel Jack Smith will indict Donald Trump
for his role in the January 6 insurrection or for this misappropriation of secret
documents, it isn’t unreasonable to ask ourselves why it is that the former
President isn’t getting prosecuted for a wide range of other crimes that he has
committed in plain view throughout and after his time in the White House.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Let’s first
see what the crimes are that we are talking about and then address why, at
least until now, Donald Trump hasn’t been indicted for any of them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">When we say:
“it’s a crime that…….” we don’t necessarily refer to an action that meets the
criteria of our penal code. We really mean to say: “this should have never
happened.” That’s what we are dealing with as we evaluate the Trump presidency
and the damage it has done to our democracy and our sanity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The story of
the Trump presidency is how he has managed to run the office and business of
the Commander in Chief as the Godfather ran his criminal empire and turned it
into a fiefdom that only served his personal interest and ambition. The story
of the Trump presidency is one of lying, grifting, embarrassing America on the
world stage, undermining our institutions, and attempting to nullify the
constitution. The whole thing was one big criminal endeavor. Realizing this, it
makes us feel slighted and small if the only thing Trump will be held to account
for is his mishandling of government papers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">On the other
hand, we must realize that Al Capone was only convicted and put in prison for tax
evasion, although that was one of his least damaging criminal offenses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">It is a
crime that for the time of his presidency the White House has been run as a
subsidiary of the Trump enterprise, staffed with members of the Trump family
and other lackeys.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">It is a
crime that he has used the office of the President for the benefit of himself,
his family, and his business that, as improbable as it may seem today, he was
never forced to separate himself from when he entered the Oval Office.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">It is a
crime that he has been allowed to silence victims of his criminal conduct by
means of non-disclosure agreements and silence fees.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">It is a
crime that his hostile take-over of the Republican Party has driven so many competent
and law-abiding republican office holders away from participation in our public
governance, people like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Ben Sasse, Jeff Flake, Bob
Corker, Charlie Dent, Rob Portman, John Kasich, Pete Meyer.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">It is a
crime that, as President, he has not taken the threat of Covid seriously from
the day the virus was identified, misled people with his advocacy of Clorox and
hydroxychloroquine as treatment, and denigrated, sidelined, and overruled the health
officials at the Center of Disease Control and other parts of the medical
community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">And then of
course there are the crimes that he has been impeached for twice, but for which
he was let off the hook by a partisan vote in the Senate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">As to the
reasons why, as of yet, he has not been held to account for these crimes, the
first explanation comes from the uniquely American principle that a sitting
President cannot be prosecuted for alleged criminal offenses under the theory
that the constitutional way to hold a President to account is by the process of
impeachment. Only after a President is removed from office can he/she be
indicted and prosecuted for a criminal offense. As an additional safeguard,
Trump made sure that at the top of the Department of Justice he had an attorney
general who had demonstrated to be willing to do his bidding.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The other
explanation comes from an uncertainty about the judicial process when dealing
with a (former) President of the United States. In America we like to say that
“nobody is above the law”, but do we really mean that? Trump lawyers will argue
that a President is immune from criminal as well as private suits and it is far
from certain how the current Supreme Court will respond to that argument.
Another argument goes that the animal didn’t change his stripes. When we
elected Donald Trump to be our President, we knew exactly what we were getting
ourselves into. He had made that abundantly clear in a two-year campaign
process and by his behavior as a real estate mogul and a media celebrity. Are
we now justified going after him when he did exactly what he told us he would
do and behaved exactly like he behaved all through his adult life and his election
campaign?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The final
explanation, and the one that Jack Smith and Merrick Garland are now chewing on,
is that it is no sinecure to obtain a conviction of a duly elected politician
who has managed to elevate himself to a cult like status from a ‘jury of his
peers’. In the first place, a cult leader has no peers and furthermore it will
be exceedingly difficult to get 12 randomly selected citizens to unanimously agree
on a guilty verdict for any crimes committed by someone who is the cult leader
of at least several of these jurors. Without a unanimous verdict there is no
conviction.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Maybe, the
crime is on us. It is a crime that America has allowed this deeply flawed,
corrupt, and dangerous man to hold the highest office in the land of the free. We
now must deal with the consequences of the Republican abdication of duty when a
large majority of Republican Senators twice refused to convict their President
for the crimes he so blatantly committed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-65107249183113266182022-11-15T12:39:00.000-08:002022-11-15T12:39:12.542-08:00THE FEVER HAS BROKEN<p><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">On the eve
of Election Day, November 8, 2022, I tweeted “</span><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">This moment feels like an episode of Will the Real America
please Stand Up?” There was, and had been, so much talk, including from me,
about the threat that the mid-term election of 2022 could spell the end of our
democracy as we knew it, but all the doomsaying had come from the partisans and
the pundits; we had not heard from the voters and that was about to change. The
debate in the media had reached a fever pitch with so much at stake and the
realization that we are a divided country and that a few votes here or there
could make a huge difference in the tug of war between full democracy and the
autocratic tendencies that had crept up in our political discourse.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The threat to full republican
democracy emanated from the refusal of our 45<sup>th</sup> President to accept
the legitimacy of the vote in the 2020 Presidential election that he had lost
by a wide margin and the support his election denial had gained in wide swaths
of the Republican Party (141 House Republicans and 6 Republican Senators voted
against certification of Biden’s victory). Further fueled by the January 6,
2021, assault on the Capitol and the discovery of the use of election denial as
a tool to win in primary elections, election denial had infected the whole body
politic and threatened to kill democracy as we had known it for centuries. Just
like, before the discovery of antibiotics, a bacterial infection would keep the
patient in a death struggle until the fever broke (or not and the patient died),
the fever the nation was suffering from would have to be broken by the voters or
democracy in America might have to be declared dead.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Even though not all
results of the November 8 election are in, the real America has stood up and
revealed that it stands, as before, with democracy. The country is as divided
as ever (just look at a near evenly split Senate and House of Representatives),
but in virtually all the headline races in competitive States and Districts,
voters have dismissed the blatant election deniers, Q-Anon conspirators, and would-be
autocrats. But, as many others have already pointed out, the threat has not
completely been removed. We need to realize that a large majority of voting
districts are non-competitive, some because of traditional political
preference, many because of jerrymandered district configuration. The Cook
Political Report identified 345 of the 435 voting districts ‘non-competitive’,
159 solid Democratic and 186 solid Republican. That is 79% of the House seats.
In these districts election deniers had a free run and many of them got elected
to public office. This built-in feature of ‘safe’ districts is a clear
limitation of functioning democracy, which cannot be removed without adjusting
the number of House seats in tune with the population growth and by political
and judicial rejection of jerrymandering.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">What we can derive from
this reality is that a battle was won, but the war isn’t over. It will take
several more election cycles, and defeats of extreme anti-democratic contenders
before we can say for sure that republican democracy is safe in America. The
2024 Presidential election will be the next determinant. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Although Donald Trump
took a severe indirect beating in the mid-term election by seeing most of his
endorsed candidates go down in defeat, he will figure large in the next big
showdown. He will announce his candidacy tonight and regardless of whether he
will get the Republican nomination or not, he will have a huge influence on the
outcome of the election. The future of the GOP and the future of the two-party
system in America are in his hands. As Charlie Sykes, an American political commentator
and editor-in-chief of the website ‘The Bulwark,’ has pointed out: “Trump can
destroy the party whenever he wants, yet the party can’t destroy him without
also risking its own crack-up”. The vote for the leadership position in the now
Republican controlled House of Representatives will give us a first glimpse of
the struggle within the GOP between Trump backers and those who want to move on
from the stranglehold Trump has held over the party since 2016. If the GOP
unity survives that struggle, it will have to contend with the primary
elections for 2024 and particularly the looming confrontation between Ron
DeSantis and Donald Trump. If in the end the GOP denies Donald Trump the
nomination, I see him running as an Independent against the Republican nominee,
which will split the party for good and hand the White House to the Democrats
on a silver platter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Oh, how would the
Republican establishment wish that it had backed away from Donald Trump when it
had an open chance with the second Trump impeachment! It would have neutered Trumpism
and election denial and it would have given the Republican Party a resounding
victory in the polls this November; it would have delivered them complete
control of the Senate and the House of Representatives (as it is, Republican
candidates for the House of Representatives garnered 4.5% more votes that their
Democratic opponents). The only thing that stood in the way of a red wave was
Donald Trump and the acolytes he pushed forward for elected office. The same phantom
will be standing in the way of a Republican recapture of the White House in
2024, even if between now and then he ends up being indicted for the crimes he
has committed while in office. Which is a shame, because in my opinion the GOP
has a much more qualified bench with people like Liz Cheney, Larry Hogan, Chris
Sununu, or Charlie Baker than the Democrats. And, with all due respect, Joe
Biden will be too age limited to serve a full and productive second term in his
eighties. He may be their strongest candidate to win the election, but he
should consider getting elected and stepping out of the way in favor of the
person he would pick as his running mate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Yes, the fever has
broken, but the source of the infection has yet to be removed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">A few more takeaways
from the mid-term election held precisely a week ago:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Florida
and Ohio are no longer swing States, they are bright red.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Democrats
lost control of the House because of poor performance in California and New York.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Democrats
failed to break through in Texas.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">New
England is reliably blue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Incumbency
has been a marked advantage even for seriously challenged candidates like Ron
Johnson in WI; Chuck Grassley in Iowa; Greg Abbot in TX; Marco Rubio in FL; Michael
Bennet in CO; Rand Paul in KY; and Brian Kemp in GA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">If
the Democrats win one more Senate seat in the December 6 run-off election in
Georgia, the power of the Democratic hold-outs Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema will
be greatly diminished.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The
report of the January 6 Committee, who’s work will now be finished during the 117<sup>th</sup>
Congress, and DOJ action on the various Trump investigations, will greatly
determine how the political picture will change between now and November of
2024.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In
addition to getting help from the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe vs Wade and
from Trump’s grip on the GOP, Joe Biden has staved off a devastating defeat for
the Democrats by being effective in garnering bipartisan support for some important
legislative initiatives and by resisting any temptation to change the rules of
the game by eliminating the filibuster rule, packing the Supreme Court, or granting
Statehood to the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: #0f1419; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Gen
Z has had an impact on the election result by voting overwhelmingly Democratic
even if its turnout has been pegged at only 27%.</span><span style="color: #0f1419; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-21729259530070951802022-10-18T11:55:00.001-07:002022-10-19T06:36:50.723-07:00DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK<p>We are three weeks away from the mid-term election and as I
look at the world today, I see a very different picture from what I was used to
seeing for most of my life and from what I expected to be seeing as an
inevitable path to destiny.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Growing up in the Netherlands as I did after the second
world war, I looked at Eastern Europe as a backwater that was hardly worth
paying attention to. A lost cause, largely hidden behind the iron curtain. All
through my schooling years, I was a fervent proponent of European unification,
but Eastern Europe was not part of the consideration. Civilization, in my eyes,
had developed on a continuum from ancient Greece to the Roman Empire, to the
Renaissance in Western Europe, and was now in the custody of the Western
Alliance that had been forged out of the two world wars. America, having been
the decisive factor in winning the wars, was in my eyes the undisputed champion
of freedom and democracy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Today, the world looks a little different. If the polls have
it right, (and that is a big “if” because with the disappearance of landlines
for telephone communication and peoples’ tendency to block calls on their cell
phone from unnamed sources, who really gets polled?) American voters see
democracy in peril but are disinclined to make the issue the litmus test when
it comes to voting for or against candidates who are a threat to the voting
rights for all eligible citizens and a threat to democracy as we know it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wipe my eyes in disbelief when I read that suddenly 28
percent of all voters, including 41 percent of Republicans, say that they have
little or no faith in the accuracy of this year’s midterm elections. This is
what the echo chambers fed by the partisan media have wrought. Republicans, who
are now faithful Trump followers, are set to only accept election results that
come out in their favor and Democrats have doubts that this time the system
will hold and that the popular vote will prevail in all cases, against any
shenanigans that Republican governors, Secretaries of State, State
legislatures, and other election officials can come up with.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Isn’t the American election apparatus supposed to be the envy of the
world in fairness and accuracy? And hasn’t it been proven over time to be
incorruptible and unassailable? What has suddenly changed? The answer has to
lie with the current mass media which allow for falsehoods, rumors, innuendo,
and conspiracy theories to spread instantaneously and widely without being
seriously contested. Opposing voices are simply muted out.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is inconceivable to me 1) that Americans going to the
voting booths on November 8 will ignore the threats to democracy represented by
those candidates for public office who still deny the results of the 2020 presidential
election. 2) That the voters will forgive the Senate Republicans who endangered
our democracy by not impeaching Trump and eliminating him from elected office
after it had become clear that he would do just about anything to block a
peaceful transition of government. 3) That American women will overlook the
fact that sovereignty over their bodies is being denied by one of the two
political parties. 4) That Independent voters, who represent a larger segment
of the voting population than either the Republicans or the Democrats, would be
accepting of the far-right or far-left positions espoused by the candidates who
have survived the partisan primaries. 5) That young voters would allow retrograde
illiberal policies to rule their lives and prospects. 6) That senior citizens
would accept the Republican proposal to subject their social security to a five-year
sunset provision. 7) That patriotic Americans would look up to Putin as an
effective national leader rather than a thug. All of that defies logic. And
yet, all of this may come to pass and will be revealed by the outcome of the mid-term
election.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The bottom line is that American democracy is in peril, and it
is unclear if “the People”, who under our constitution are supposed to be the
final source of authority, will fend off the challenge presented from within.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Contrast this with the heroic display of courage, belief,
and conviction by the people in Ukraine and Iran who are literally under the
gun and are willing to put their lives on the line for the right to live their
lives as they see fit. I was wrong all along, pinning my hope and beliefs on
the Christian western civilization and dismissing the value and strength of the
east European culture and the willingness to fight for what is right now on
display in Ukraine, as it was in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It becomes clear to me how telling it is that, after the
Revolutionary War, America has never had to fight again for the system of
government its founders had designed and implemented. It was only threatened,
one time and from within, by the issue of slavery and the Civil War. That kind
of fight has, until now and in the Atlantic sphere, been the fate of the East European
powers. It now looks like complacency has set in on our shores. We have had it
too good for too long and now we no longer recognize how precious and tenuous
democracy, the right to be governed by the people we elect to the offices we
create, truly is. If the American people are okay with allowing a President to
thwart an orderly transition of government to a duly elected successor and putting
people like Herschel Walker and Mehmet Oz in the Senate, we are no longer
serious about good democratic governance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Democracy is under attack, here, and in Ukraine; in Iran the
people are fighting to regain a democratic rule. If we are the only ones who
don’t care enough about democracy to fight for it, maybe we deserve to get what
the polls seem to tell us we will be getting. Then the fight for democracy will
have to be fought again by future generations. We are already burdening future
generations with a burgeoning national debt. It would be unconscionable to ask
them to also restore us to democracy.<o:p></o:p></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-21979342895463491982022-09-19T12:12:00.000-07:002022-09-19T12:12:53.528-07:00FROM UP HIGH<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">In this blog
post, I’m going to a high elevation to review the landscape. It is a practice
that I see used by native Americans hunting the pole circle wilderness for
subsistence harvesting when they climb to a high point in their terrain to
glass the surroundings for prey. So much we can learn from the culture and
practices of people who got conditioned by the absence of modern conveniences
like roads, tap water, power and sewage systems, cell towers and all of the utilities
enabled by such infrastructure!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">From our
high point we are able to see the forest for the trees.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">There is so
much going on both domestically and internationally that it is hard to keep
seeing the big picture. It is so easy to get myopically focused on one or two storylines
and fail to see the complexity of so many things happening at the same time,
atmospherically, geographically, politically, scientifically, socially, and economically.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">I’m taking
my spot on the high perch and what do I see?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">First, my
eye catches the landscape of Ukraine, where, for the first time since the
Russian invasion of February 24, the Ukrainian army seems to be on the winning
hand and is slowly recapturing a good part of the ground it lost in the early phase
of the Russian intrusion. The Ukrainian will and power of resistance is inspiring
and effective beyond belief. No two situations are the same, but I can’t help
comparing the Ukrainian refusal to bend for Putin’s troops with the ineffective
defense of the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Denmark, and Norway against the
onslaught by Nazi Germany. Including the heroic decision by the Ukrainian
President Zelenskyy to stay put in Kyiv, lead the defense, and organize strong
international economic, humanitarian, and military support. Who, at the onset
of the Russian invasion, predicted that 7 months into the war, the Zelenskyy
government would still be in control of most of the Ukrainian territory,
including its capital, and in effect be on the counterattack against a mighty
Russian military force? It is too early to foresee where this conflict will go
from here, but what has been established beyond doubt is that Ukraine is a vibrant,
determined, courageous nation that will not (again) be subjugated by an
imperial Russian authoritarian regime.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">My gaze
drifts for a moment to England, where an end has come to a more than 70-year
reign by Queen Elizabeth II. Nobody does pump and circumstance like the British!
After Brexit, the fall of the Boris Johnson government, the dispiriting
spectacle of the Tory battle for the Johnson succession, the poor state of the
U.K. economy, the weakness of the pound sterling, and the painfully high rate
of inflation, the Queen was a rare symbol of British stability. The mourning
and the long display of tributes and ceremonies has given England some respite
from the national malaise, but it will only be temporary and soon enough
reality will sink in. One has to pity the new king who will not have the time,
the character, and the popular support to make us forget the second Elizabethan
reign. It may be up to the English national soccer team at the World Cup in
November to salvage some of the global prestige of Britannia. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Speaking of
November brings me to the mid-term elections to be held in the USA on November
8. That will be the time that American citizens are given the chance to speak
up on how and by whom they want to be governed. The ballot will be open on all
of the seats in the House of Representatives, one-third of the seats in the
Senate, and numerous State and local initiatives and elective offices.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">While
history and conventional wisdom point to a resounding defeat of the party of
the incumbent President in his first term in office, there is tension in the
air and a strong suggestion that this is going to be anything but a normal
routine mid-term election. For three reasons. First, because of the commotion
and indignation caused by the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs case,
that reversed the 50-year-old Roe vs Wade ruling that gave US women a
constitutional right to have an abortion. Second, because of the tumult in the
Republican Party between the Trump fraction and the conventional Republicans. In
many of the primaries leading up to the mid-term election Trump loyalists have
come out on top but may have great difficulty attracting the vote of
conventional Republicans and Independents in the general election. And third,
because of actions and declarations of populist Republican office holders,
governors and congressmen, on the subject of abortion and immigration that are
far outside of the bounds of popular opinion. Each of these expressions of the
culture wars raging in the USA are stirring the ire of the public and are
likely to drive an extraordinary number of voters to the voting booths on
November 8. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Unbiased
observers will also point to the quiet but exceptional progress the Biden
administration has made in the first two years of its term in office. Without
having to resort to ‘nuclear options’ like abolishing the filibuster rule, packing
the Supreme Court, or granting Statehood to Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, or the
U.S. Territories. Given the wafer-thin margin of control of the House and the
Senate, it is remarkable what the Biden Administration has been able to do with
respect to infrastructure renovation, gun control legislation, chips
manufacturing repatriation, veterans’ healthcare improvement, college debt
reduction, and climate control measures. With the economy and the supply chain flow
threatened by a rail labor dispute, it has decisively stepped in to avoid a
strike. In foreign affairs it has rebuilt trust and cooperation within the
Western Alliance, strengthened NATO and lead the free world to assist the
Ukrainians in their struggle against the Russian invaders.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">From my high
perch I can see all the way to China where, starting on October 16, the National
Congress of the Chinese Communist Party will decide if it will keep supporting
the personal cult of President Xi Jinping and give him an unprecedented third
term in office. Although he has carefully and ruthlessly stacked the deck in
favor of his ambitions, a tradition of collective rule and cultural aversion to
a personality cult rivaling the one of Mao Zedong may put his leadership to a
test at a time that it is weakened by the unpopular and ineffective control of
the Covid epidemic that started in China, by a weakened economy and by
resentment against the technology enhanced surveillance state he has put in
place.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">My panoramic
view reveals a global struggle between progress and regress, between democracy
and authoritarianism, and ultimately between peace and war. What has yet to
come in focus is how these struggles will be decided, but it is clear that the
next two years will, if not decisive, be indicative of the kind of future that
awaits us. In America it will be shaped by popular vote in November of this
year and in November of 2024. Not all nations are that lucky and it remains to
be seen if our luck holds. By rights, sovereignty resides with the people of
nations, not with whomever happens to temporarily have assumed secular administrative
control.<o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-72215395756415041522022-08-17T11:49:00.000-07:002022-08-17T11:49:33.432-07:00DEMOCRACY DEMANDS<p>Liz Cheney’s resounding defeat in the Republican primary for
the only Wyoming seat in the House of Representatives signals a watershed
moment in America’s political constellation.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On one hand it provides clarity: There is no more doubt
where today’s Republican Party stands. The litmus test is clear and absolute: If
you are not an election denier, you are not a Republican. Of the ten Republican
members of the House of Representatives who voted for impeachment in Trump’s
second impeachment trial, only two are left standing, David Valadao of
California and Daniel Newhouse of Washington. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the other hand, the future looks murkier than ever, and
more ominous. Liz Cheney’s defeat raises so many questions about the future of
what she terms to be ‘this miraculous experiment called America’:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Who will stand beside her in defense of the
American democracy while campaigning for public office in 2022 and 2024?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->What platform will be left for her to continue
her battle after the new Congress convenes in 2023 and she will no longer be
the Vice-Chair of the January 6 Committee (which may not be there any longer either
if Republicans win the House of Representatives in November)?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Will she run for President in 2024, and if so as
a Republican or an Independent? In her concession speech she emphatically and
repeatedly declared herself to be a Republican. But the current Republican
Party wants nothing to do with her.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Who will emerge as the Democratic front runner
for the 2024 Presidential Election? In spite of all official pronouncements to
the contrary, Biden will be too old to run effectively, and Kamala Harris has
done nothing to deserve taking over the mantle. At this early stage, the
absence of a clear front runner from within the Democratic Party – one who can
unite all wings of the party and attract Independents in large numbers – gives Trump
a huge advantage if he can win a contested Republican primary. Who is there on
the Democratic side? Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Jamie Raskin? Ironically,
the person who is best positioned to attract the vote of Democrats,
Independents, and probably some remaining anti-Trump Republicans, is Joe
Manchin, who has thwarted the original Biden agenda at almost every turn but is
a stalwart of constitutional democracy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The irony is that, if it comes to preserving the great
American experiment in democracy, the best candidates to squash the authoritarian
populist wave that has engulfed a significant part of the voting public are on
the Republican side with people like Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Larry Hogan, and
Ben Sasse. But, sadly, none of these can be expected to prevail in a Republican
primary contest against Donald Trump. And Ron DeSantis is too much of a authoritarian
populist himself to be relied on for saving the constitutional republic.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is much to be said for having one of these traditional
Republicans, if none of them can beat Trump or DeSantis in the Republican
primary, run as an Independent for the Presidency in 2024, but with a weak
Democratic candidate, it would almost certainly siphon off Independent voters
and some moderate Democrats and by default hand the victory to the person who
should in Liz Cheney’s words never again be near the Oval Office.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is now clear that a major, if not decisive, battle for
democracy was lost when in February of 2021 only 7 Republican senators ( Lisa
Murkowski, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse,
and Pat Toomey) voted to convict Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial
which centered on his denial of his defeat against Joe Biden and his actions
and omissions during the government transition period between the November 3, 2020
election and Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021. The January 6
investigation has established beyond any reasonable doubt that, following his
electoral defeat, the former President tried every trick in the book to thwart
a peaceful transition of power and he should have been impeached for that. It
would have eliminated the pickle we are finding ourselves in today. Instead,
the Senate, needing 67 votes for a conviction but getting only 57, acquitted him.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">America will now be forced to go through four excruciating political
contests: The midterm elections which will decide control of Congress for the
next two years and the lead-up to the 2024 Presidential election; the primary
elections to decide the Presidential candidates for 2024; the Presidential
election itself; and -menacingly – the contest of wills following the election
of the new President if, like in 2020, the loser refuses to concede.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">America is facing a double threat to its democracy: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->There is a real risk that in the 2024 Presidential
Election an anti-democratic, authoritarian, populist will be voted into the
White House; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->If that is not the case, we can expect to see a
repeat of the denial of the electoral outcome, this time assisted by State legislatures
and officials willing to overrule the popular vote and pick their own slate of
electors.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In either scenario, we must fear for violence in the streets.
America will then pay the price for having allowed ordinary citizens, including
members of the political fringes on the left and the right, to arm themselves
with an unlimited supply of military style weapons. We have already seen enough
of the tragic consequences with the events of January 6 and recent attacks on the
FBI and other law enforcement. No one can say we were not forewarned. The
threats are everywhere on social and a-social media.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Democracy demands that American voters come to their senses
and vote in droves, in November and again in 2024, for only those candidates
for elected office who profess to abide by the verdict that the voters pass on
them when they enter the voting booth.<o:p></o:p></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-90497172840852397632022-07-21T09:13:00.000-07:002022-07-21T09:13:42.363-07:00DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED<p><span style="font-size: 10pt;">There is no
denying that, ever since I published my book NEITHER HERE NOR THERE in 2014, I
have grown increasingly pessimistic about the political future of our beloved
country. At a stage of my life, towards the end, that I should be mostly
concerned with enjoying my retirement, my beautiful family, and the unshackling
of any business obligation, I find myself obsessing with what I see developing
as the undoing of the great American experiment in democracy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">I lived so
long with the mantra “do the best with what is within your control and don’t
waste any energy on things that are beyond your control”, but now I can’t help
myself agonizing every waking moment about what I see as an inexorably disintegrating
American dream, realizing full well that, if it is happening, it is completely
beyond my control. It is well known that Benjamin Franklin on September 18,
1787 – the last day of the Constitutional Convention- in answer to the question
‘what have we wrought’ answered: ‘a republic if you can keep it’. For 235 years
we have managed to keep a constitutional republic, but now I fear that we may
not be able to safeguard it any longer.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The source
of my pessimism is found in a message I recently received from an old friend of
mine who represents the populist version of extreme right-wing ideology – the political
undercurrent I fear most – in which he lamented: “Beginning about 1992 America
began to feel guilty about our accomplishments, our exceptionalism, and our
wealth. And from Inauguration Day 1992 (the start of the Clinton presidency) we
have, inch by inch, foot by foot, meter by meter, disassembled the greatest God-fearing
constitutional republic ever formed on earth. But today, 30 years and 6 months
later we are absolutely doomed! I can’t fix it and I damn sure refuse to ruin
my few remaining years on earth trying to understand why my country abandoned
me and traded me for a very small community of left-wing kooks!!! I no longer
believe in the USA. I did my part, so I am comfortable I did my best to help
the USA!!! She’s truly of course, failing fast and sure to collapse.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">This is
America in a nutshell today. We are both afraid that the great American
experiment is doomed, but for diametrically opposed reasons. I am deeply
concerned about the future of our democracy because in our two-party system one
of the parties has chosen to put party over country and is making its case to
the people by fearmongering, appealing to its most primitive nativist instincts,
spinning the craziest conspiracy stories, and taking advantage of a carefully
orchestrated take-over of State governorships, State legislatures, and the Supreme
Court. At the same time, my old friend feels defeated by the threat of a take-over
of the government of the nation by ‘left-wing kooks’. You would think that he
would feel buoyed by the prospect of Republican control of the Congress after
the November election, by the re-emergence of Donald Trump and his
sympathizers, and by the support his ideologies are getting from a retrograde
Supreme Court. But, instead, he believes no longer in the USA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">While I am
concerned about the fact that voting rights are getting trampled in all bright-red
States; that it has proven to be impossible in the current political
constellation to strengthen our democracy by some simple improvements to our
governance model by reducing the money influence in politics, eliminating
gerrymandering, increasing the number of members of the House of
Representatives, eliminating the ‘winner takes all’ rule in the assignment of
members of the Electoral College, and making ‘ranked voting’ the rule in State
elections; my old friend wants us to go back to the time that white male conservatives
controlled all levers of power in the political domain.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">While I am
concerned about the cavernous inequality that has split American society; about
peoples’ indulgence with the proliferation of guns in America and the resulting
daily carnage they cause; about peoples’ tolerance for misinformation coming at
us from social media and partisan news channels; about populist attempts to
whitewash all sordid aspects of our checkered history; and about a clear
resurfacing of racist, nativist, sentiment that gets openly spewed in political
campaigns on the right; my old friends frets about our nation slipping into a
socialist wasteland.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">How can these
diametrically opposed assessments of where we are heading and what the relevant
threats to our nation are be reconciled? The only point we agree on is that the
outlook is bleak, that we are on a path to doom of our own making. And I’m
afraid my old friend and I are representative of the two camps the nation has
split into and that is the reason for my increased pessimism. With the camps so
diametrically opposed, and seemingly no viable constituency in the middle, how
do we ever get out of this impasse and find a way to regain our democratic élan,
bring our system of government up to speed with modern times, and thus save the
republic that was created 235 years ago?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">God forbid
that we just throw in the towel and surrender to the antidemocratic groundswell
that has swept what once was the Grand Old Party. It is now really up to the
People. With the elections of 2022 and 2024 the voting public has the
opportunity to right the ship, save the democracy -and the republic- by
unequivocally denying the populist right-wing zealots access to elected office.
What is needed is the mobilization of every citizen in defense of our constitutional
democracy so that we can prosper under a government of the people, for the
people, and by the people. And I mean all of the people, not just the ones who rule
the roost.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Postscript.
Tonight, in prime time, we will witness the final scheduled hearing of the
January 6 Committee, which will be presided over by Republican Representative Liz
Cheney (since chairman Benny Thompson is in Covid quarantine). The January 6 <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>hearings have been the only serious push-back
against the authoritarian take-over of the GOP by Trump and his sycophants.
Faced with the near certainty that its work will be halted after the mid-term
elections in November, the Committee is working overtime to get the record
established on the insurrection attempted by the former President and condoned
by most Republicans. Liz Cheney is a rare politician who is prepared to put her
political future on the line in pursuit of defense of our democracy. As such,
she is one of only a few bulwarks against a decisive slide into
authoritarianism. Her warning is stern: “As a country, we’re at a moment where
we really do have to step back from the abyss and it’s not totally clear to me
that we’re going to. The forces that want to drag us over the edge are strong
and fighting. But we have to.” I hope all of America will be watching tonight
and be heeding her warning.<o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-4890150791274527912022-06-22T07:42:00.002-07:002022-06-22T07:42:36.640-07:00JURY OF PEERS<p><span style="font-size: 10pt;">For open
minded people, the revelations presented to the nation by the ‘Select Committee
to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol’ likely
raise the question why the Justice Department has not (yet) taken prosecutorial
action against the former President or any of his closest advisors. That question
comes to me with increasing frequency and incredulity from my Dutch friends and
relatives and it is a question that I have been pondering for quite a while. My
readers know that I am no friend of the former President and have opposed first
his candidacy and then his presidency with all my powers of conviction and that,
for that reason, I can be accused of bias, but the evidence, surfaced over time
in actions and words of the man himself and now presented to the nation by the
Select Committee, is so overwhelming and convincing (as it is coming almost
exclusively from Republicans who at one time or another were supporting the
former President or worked closely with him) that it looks as if there is an
open-and-shut case against him. If only it was that simple.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The Harvard
law professor and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Jack Goldsmith, has
provided some clear insight in the many complexities facing Merrick Garland,
the current US Attorney General, in determining what, if any, criminal
proceedings he could or should instigate against the former President. He has
done so in a guest essay published in the June 20 edition of the New York Times
under the title ‘Prosecute Trump? Put yourself in Merrick Garland’s Shoes’ <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/20/opinion/trump-merrick-garland-january-6-committee.html" target="_blank"><span style="background: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif;">https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0<wbr></wbr>6/20/opinion/trump-merrick-gar<wbr></wbr>land-january-6-committee.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">It is too
early to say what will happen, but here are a few things to keep in mind:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The
January 6<sup>th</sup> Committee is not an official National Commission
appointed by Congress like the 9/11 Commission was and will undoubtedly be
disbanded when, as is widely predicted, the Republican Party will take control
of Congress after the November 2022 election. It has not finished its job and
may never get the time to do so.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Prosecution
for criminal conduct by a former US President while in office is both a judicial
and a political process and has never been tried before.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">The
former President has been impeached already twice but acquitted in both instances.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">A
successful prosecution for any crime committed by the former President will
require a unanimous decision to convict from a 12-person jury of his peers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">Even
if a conviction can be obtained, it is certain to be appealed up to the Supreme
Court in a process that will take years and extend beyond the next Presidential
election in 2024.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">A
prosecution resulting in an acquittal will have for effect that it places the
President of the USA above the law in almost the same manner and measure as a
decision not to prosecute would do. It will be heralded by the former President
as a complete vindication.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">One of the
most impressive witnesses appearing before the January 6 Committee in its
public hearings has been J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and a staunch lifelong Republican. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">In his
prepared written statement for the June 16, 2022, hearing before the January 6
Committee he observes that we Americans are at war with ourselves and that <i>“We
Americans no longer agree on what is right and what is wrong, what is to be
valued and what is not, what is acceptable behavior and not, and what is and is
not tolerable discourse in civilized society. Let alone do we agree on how we
want to be governed or by whom, or where we go from here and with what shared
national ideals, values, beliefs, purposes, goals, and objectives – if any at
all.”</i> He speaks to the Committee and the nation of <i>“a well-developed
plan by the former president to overturn the 2020 presidential election at any
cost, so that he could cling to power that the American People had decided to
confer upon his successor.”</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">In an
earlier, February 14, 2022, guest essay in the New York Times judge Luttig
warned of a “clear and present danger to our democracy” in that the former
President and his political allies appear prepared to seize the presidency in
2024 if he, or his anointed candidate is not elected by the American people. He
has since repeated this warning in media interviews given in the days after his
testimony before the January 6 Committee.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">So, where
are we? What is Merrick Garland to do and who can come to the rescue of our
democracy? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Judge Luttig, in his
written statement before the January 6 Committee, puts the responsibility for
ending the war among ourselves squarely in the hands of “a critical mass of our
two parties’ political leaders” adding that their number needs to “include a
critical mass of leaders from the former president’s political party and that
those leaders need to go first.” You don’t have to be an incurable cynic to ask
where in the world these leaders can be found. These ‘leaders’ have been around
for years if not decades without ever putting a stop to all the acrimony, polarization,
and corruption and have, in many instances, been complicit with or tolerant of
the subversion of our democracy by the former President. What will compel them
to suddenly see the light? Either way, the question of accountability for the well-developed
plan by the former President to overturn the 2020 election remains unanswered. I
find harsh irony in the thought that, had his plan succeeded, the
constitutional remedy would have had to be found not in a criminal trial but in
a third impeachment, a recourse that is not available now that he is no longer
in office.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">There are no
easy options at this point. Nothing can erase the fact that we are hopelessly
divided on even the question if our republican democracy is worth defending. We
have become a nation of extremists on the right and on the left and cowards in
the middle. And, God knows, the extremists have the guns. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 125%;">It looks
increasingly likely that we will just have to fight it out at the ballot box. We
will see revolt in the streets if the former president gets indicted and we
will see it if DOJ does not indict or if a prosecution ends in acquittal. The uncomfortable
fact is that in today’s America you cannot find any 12 randomly picked American
citizens who will agree that what the former President has done to overturn the
2020 election and undermine our faith in the fairness of our elections amounts
to a high crime and misdemeanor. It will take only one of 12 jurors to halt a
conviction.<o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-85566716670994006722022-05-23T12:59:00.000-07:002022-05-23T12:59:54.444-07:00WHERE ARE WE?<p>I just came
back from a visit to Europe, which was planned for the purpose of catching up
with family and friends as the COVID tide was ebbing away, but took on
additional meaning after February 24, when Putin decided to invade Ukraine and
broke the long period of European peace that followed the devastation caused by
World War II. I was curious to find how Europeans assessed the situation. After
all, they know all about invasion wars conducted on their territory, an
experience Americans have not had to submit to since the war of 1812 and
probably never will again.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 125%;">We chose to
make this trip the old-fashioned way, by boat, taking advantage of Holland
America Line repositioning its newest ship in the fleet, the Rotterdam, from
the Caribbean trade to the coastal Europe trade. It was a much more comfortable
way to travel than an overnight flight and offered stops at the Azores,
Normandy, Belgium and its destination, Amsterdam.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 125%;">We saw a lot
of Ukrainian flags and found the Europeans in great solidarity with the
Ukrainian people, welcoming their refugees, in contrast with refugees from
Africa and the Middle East, with wide open arms. We did not detect a lot of
concern about the possibility of a much wider war in Europe but much
appreciation of Biden’s insistence on resurrecting the Western alliance. It was
poignant that our visit coincided with the 77<sup>th</sup> anniversary of the Allied
victory over Germany and that it included a visit to the D-Day landing beaches
in Normandy. The words “Never Again” kept entering our minds, and yet, here we
are, silent party to another European war. After disembarking in Amsterdam, our
time was spent in our home country of the Netherlands. The Dutch observe two
minutes national silence every year at 8:00 pm on May 4 (Remembrance Day) to
pay tribute to the victims of World War II. We watched the ceremonies,
including wreath laying by the king and queen of the Netherlands on the Dam in
Amsterdam and a solemn memorial service in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam. If we
did not know it all along, we were reminded again how awful war is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 125%;">It was good
living in a different world for a while, largely disconnected from social
media, but now we are back stateside, and we ask ourselves ‘where are we?’ What
has happened during the four weeks we were away and removed from the cable TV
circuit. And how do we look at the world now that we have had a refresher
course in world history that we don’t want to see repeated?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 125%;">Where are
we? The impression that comes to mind is that we are at the dark side of the
moon. The side that is carefully and mostly hidden from view, but always there.
And it seems that the moon is turning and that the dark side is more and more
presenting itself as the face of the moon. The bright side of the moon gave us
the impression that, once the Cold War was won, we were on an inexorably upward
course to peace, prosperity, and equality bestowed upon us by a liberal
democracy. The theory was that American demographics were favoring progressive
over conservative prospects, as America was growing less white and more diverse.
The future promised a more just and equal society, where everyone would be able
to realize their dreams and ambitions, not just the lucky few. That theory is
pretty much out of the window, relegated to the heap of unrealized utopias.
What happened?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 125%;">What
happened in America politics is not unlike what happened in the Catholic Church
and the Southern Baptist Church where the people in charge were more concerned
about staying in charge than about their pastoral duties and were willing to turn
a blind eye to the abuses of power that were rampant under the cloak of ecclesial
moral authority. In fact, in American politics it went beyond turning a blind
eye to abuse of power, abuse of power became policy. The methods are deceivingly
justified by reference to a 235-year-old Constitution and archaic rules of
procedure governing the proceedings in Congress. The result is that any attempt
to modernize the American political system away from a platform of white incumbency
has been thwarted, despite fundamentally changed demographics. It explains why,
for instance, the 2019 report ‘Our Common Purpose, Reinventing American
Democracy for the 21<sup>st</sup> Century’ from the Commission on the Practice
of Democratic Citizenship of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences has never
gained any traction and why suggestions from the National Constitution Center
for a new Constitution for the United States in 2020 have been completely
ignored. It explains why we still have the ‘filibuster rule’ in the Senate, why
we have not expanded the House of Representatives in line with our population
growth, and why we have so many octogenarians in leadership roles in Congress.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 125%;">We know that
we are on the dark side of the moon when the issue of the day is not how to
reinvent American Democracy for the 21<sup>st</sup> Century but if we can fend
off a direct attack on our American Democracy from an authoritarian streak in
the Republican Party initiated by our 45<sup>th</sup> President and his
populist followers. Supported by our reverence for our archaic rules of play, the
Republican Party has quietly and methodically changed the political landscape
by taking control of State and local legislative and executive bodies and by filling
the judiciary bench with adherents to an originalist interpretation of the law,
mostly members of the Federalist Society. Now that the GOP itself has, at many
levels, been hijacked by the populist and authoritarian movement which has its
tentacles also in the federal judiciary, America’s democracy is at risk. The American
Republic, in contrast to most other world powers, has since its inception been
able to pride itself in a peaceful transfer of power based on free and fair election
outcomes. That is no longer guaranteed if partisan officials, be it governors,
State legislatures, or Secretaries of State, are allowed to overrule the popular
vote in appointing the members of the Electoral College. This is what is at
stake with the 2022 and 2024 national elections. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="line-height: 125%;">The dark
side of the moon has come plainly into view during the primaries for the
November election. It threatens with the prospect of dictatorial control of our
lives, including a ban on abortions, an end to the separation of church and
state, dictates on what we can and cannot read and teach in schools,
institutionalized inequality, a halt to immigration, and disrespect for the
rights of non-white, non-heterosexual, non-Christian, minorities. The dark side
of the moon is where we are heading unless we deny the bigots their platform,
come out in droves in the upcoming elections, and unequivocally defend
democracy.<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-45306567861904463542022-04-12T10:47:00.000-07:002022-04-12T10:47:42.761-07:00BLOODLANDS<p> ‘Bloodlands’ is the title of a book professor Timothy Snyder
wrote in 2010 about the East European territory that took the brunt of the titanic
20<sup>th</sup> century struggle between Stalin’s communism and Hitler’s Nazism.
A struggle that, in Snyder’s
estimation, took fourteen million lives in twelve years of killing policies
unrelated to combat (with Russian and German combat casualties estimated at
another eleven million).</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The bloodlands in which this struggle took place are
comprised of Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, and Western parts of
Russia. Ukraine was at the heart of it and, together with Poland, took some of
the hardest blows. When the Second World War finally ended in Europe, there was
a strong worldwide sentiment of ‘never again’ that resulted in the formation of
the United Nations and economic cooperation between the former European opponents
which, in stages, resulted in the European Union of today. The Western allies chose
for a joint security arrangement by creating NATO and the Soviet Union
responded by combining force with their East European satellites in the Warsaw
Pact. These two huge military blocks, both equipped with nuclear power, kept each
other in balance by the threat of mutually assured destruction, and by all
these means an uneasy peace was kept in Europe for almost eighty years, with
only one exception of the Balkan wars of 1991-1992. As FDR, Churchill and
Stalin redrew in the final stages of the Second Word War the map on European borders and
spheres of influence, a norm against territorial conquest developed and was
enshrined in the UN Charter. With the fall of the Soviet Union, rapid
globalization of the world economy, and the unprecedented growth of technology
and prosperity in Europe, there was a reasonable expectation that the big
European wars were behind us, forever. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But now we know it was not to be. And it is again the bloodlands
that are getting brutally hit after seventy-seven years of uneasy peace. For
the time being, the bloodshed is limited to Ukraine and its adversary Russia,
but the conflict has every chance of expanding to the bloodlands beyond the
Ukrainian borders. In fact, Poland is already significantly affected by the
influx of 2.6 million refugees from Ukraine, and the people of Russia are
feeling the pain of the war in large numbers of military casualties and a
collapsing economy under the pressure of economic sanctions leveled by the West.
But the conflict is only seven weeks old and can, at any time, conflagrate into
a much wider war. All it takes is a spark that crosses over into NATO territory.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the meantime, the world is helplessly watching Vladimir
Putin flaunting all the norms and rules of international law by invading
Ukraine and indiscriminately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure in
his conquest to restore a part of the Soviet empire that broke apart in 1991. Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was right on target when he asked the UN Security
Council in a virtual address on April 5 what the purpose was of having a
security council that proves incapable of maintaining the security of the
members of the United Nations. His plight has surfaced the uncomfortable truth
that the current UN Charter is deficient in several respects, including the
fact that Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, can block a
referral of its transgression to the International Criminal Court. If a permanent
member of the Security Council violates the rules of the UN Charter, it should
be barred from voting on UN action against such transgression. In the UN as the
guardian of the international order, no single member should be above the law. As
professor Tanisha Fazal states in a great article in the May/June issue of
Foreign Affairs magazine titled ‘The Return of Conquest?’: <span style="color: #0f1419; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“If
the global community allows Russia to subsume Ukraine, states may more
frequently use force to challenge borders, wars may break out, former empires
may be reinstated, and more countries may be brought to the edge of extinction.”</span>
Her article has the appropriate subtitle ‘Why the Future of Global Order Hinges
on Ukraine.’<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As it is, blood is flowing in rivulets again in the
bloodlands and the global community has no tools to stem the flow. The conflict
resembles a heavyweight boxing match that bloodies both sides but will not end
until one of the combatants throws in the towel. Putin speculates that it will
be Ukraine, which is why he will not stop hitting Ukrainian cities and people
from the air with missiles, artillery, and bombers. The West rightly accuses
him of committing war crimes, if not genocide, but must admit that it used the
same tactics to bring Nazi Germany to its knees. Unfortunately, there is
nothing new under the sun. The only difference is that the Allies in the Second World War were
fighting to defeat the aggressor and this time it is the aggressor who flaunts
the rules of war.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Contemplating all this, I can’t help but wonder how this new
chapter of the bloodlands tragedy will end. And I dare to look back at the
American Revolutionary War for guidance. That too was a fight of David against
Goliath and I see more similarities: First, motivation and popular belief and support.
Just like the American Revolutionaries fought for their independence, the
Ukrainians know that they are fighting for the right of their nation to exist. The
belief to be fighting for a just cause is a powerful motivator for the
Ukrainians and one that the Russians, despite all Putin’s rhetoric, miss. Second,
the strong support of the Ukrainian military effort by the use of diplomacy. Just
like Benjamin Franklin tenaciously courted the French to support the American
cause with financial and military assistance, so does President Zelenskyy do a phenomenal
job on rallying the support of the free world for his cause. In both cases,
part of the diplomatic message is the unshakable conviction that the cause is just,
and the fight can be won. It is not hard therefore to predict that ultimately
Ukraine will win. The question is at what price? The Revolutionary War took six
years to be decided because the British had to concede in the end that they
could not continue to take the losses of life and treasury in a fight on
foreign territory. With the benefit of hindsight, it is now clear that even if
the British had fought the war to a stalemate, in the end they would not have been
able to deny America its independence and sovereignty. Whatever happens next, I
do not believe that Putin can make good on his belief that Ukraine is not an
independent country and has no right to exist other than as a part of the
Russian empire. But, in the meantime the bloodlands are living up to their name
again.</span><o:p></o:p></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-34179994615433931392022-03-23T08:33:00.005-07:002022-03-23T12:31:48.294-07:00OR ELSE<p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">Tomorrow it
is exactly four weeks since Vladimir Putin ordered his troops to invade
Ukraine, a sovereign country bordering Russia and long considered a friendly
neighbor. It was so predictable. Putin had systematically positioned a massive
military force all along the Russian border with Ukraine and yet most of us
refused to believe that he would make the fateful decision to cross the border
and start a war, even though he had previously done so with Abkhazia and South
Ossetia in 2008 and Crimea and Donbas in 2014.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">Putin took
months of preparation and amassed a formidable force of more than 160,000 troops
on his border with Ukraine in plain view of the world and his point of the
spear was positioned a mere 236 miles from the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. It is
abundantly clear that Putin’s speculation was that he would capture Kyiv in a
matter of days, decapitate the Ukrainian government, install a puppet regime,
and then proceed to force the Ukrainian military into surrender. And it is
equally clear that he speculated that, despite US warnings of severe repercussions,
the West would not seriously impede his ambitions. After all, it had allowed
him to get away with all his transgressions in 2008 and 2014. Four weeks later things
look a little different.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">War is
horrible and this one is no exception. We get minute by minute images of human
suffering and material destruction inflicted by overpowering weaponry in a deliberate
attempt to pound fearful defenseless civilians into submission. There are
reports of more than 10 million displaced persons out of a population of 44
million Ukrainians, including 3.3 million refugees who have sought safety in the
bordering states of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, and Moldova. And the death
toll, although shrouded in the fog of war, is measured in tens of thousands. The
Ukrainians are paying a terrible price for the defense of their sovereignty and,
indeed, the protection of a democratic world order.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">And yet, the
democratically elected Zelensky government is still in place and in control in
Kyiv. The Ukrainian parliament is able to vote, the central bank is working,
trains are running, local governments function, groceries, if they are not
bombed by the invaders, are open, and the Ukrainian people are heroically
defending their freedom. Putin has evidently been unable to disrupt the
Ukrainian command and control. His ground troops, hampered by material
breakdowns and supply shortages, are finding themselves in a quagmire, and are
reportedly taking heavy casualties. And he has yet to establish complete control
of the airspace over Ukraine.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">For too long
we have been held back by the assumption that NATO intervention would create an
unacceptable risk of triggering a full-blown European war. It kept us from telling
Putin: “You stop the aggression, or else”, because we were unsure how we could
credibly fill in the ‘or else’ part. We should now capitalize on the Russian
failure to execute its war plan, by turning the table on Putin.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">When it
comes to the West, Putin has fatally miscalculated. His unprovoked aggression
has met with a determined, unified, response from NATO and the EU and the
sanctions imposed on him by a unified front are crippling his economy. In an
impressive show of defiance of Putin and solidarity with the Ukrainian case,
the leaders of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia visited last week with
President Zelensky in Kyiv while it was under attack from Putin’s military. Most
damaging to Putin is the determination by the West European countries that they
made a strategic mistake in thinking that Russia, under the Putin regime, could
be depended upon for the supply of a substantial part of their need for oil and
gas without jeopardizing the security balance in Europe. The whole idea that by
establishing strong economic ties between Russia and Western Europe, the Putin
regime could be held in check and the peace in Europe could be maintained, is
now out of the window. The mood in Western Europe has changed. Confronted with
naked aggression from an authoritarian Russian regime, it has accepted the need
for increased military spending, and it realizes better than before the value
of the NATO alliance. Sweden and Finland that have sit on the sidelines and
stayed out of NATO are now rethinking that position.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">President Biden’s
efforts to restore the Western alliance have been boosted unexpectedly and
immensely by Putin’s folly. As of this writing Biden is on his way to visit
Brussels and Warsaw and we should not be amazed if he would risk arranging an
unannounced meeting with President Zelensky in Lviv or even Kyiv. It would give
the Ukrainians an invaluable show of support and it would demonstrate for the
whole world to see that Putin does not set the rules of engagement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">The risk, of
course, is that in the face of such ongoing humiliation Putin will double down
on the course he already has been forced to embark upon by the failures of his
ground troops to capture territory: The indiscriminate targeting of Ukrainian
civilians, infrastructure, and property from the air and from the sea. The near
total destruction of Mariupol and Kharkiv gives evidence of his disregard for
the rules of warfare, and we should take him seriously when he threatens the
use of nuclear weapons in the face of continuing resistance by the Ukrainian
military and the Ukrainian people. US intelligence has warned of the
probability that Putin will resort to the use of chemical or biological weapons
if he can’t prevail using conventional means. Either way, the devastation in
the Ukrainian cities, in only four weeks, is already of biblical proportions
and the real question is: How long will NATO stand by and allow these
atrocities to go unanswered. That question is likely to be the centerpiece of the
talks later this week in Brussels and Warsaw.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">What can the
free world say or do to stop Putin from continuing his path of destruction? Is
there a credible red line that the free world can draw and say to Putin “to
here and no further” without triggering WWIII in the process?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">I hope that
the NATO leaders will agree this week to tell Putin that, if he continues to attack
non-military targets in Ukraine with artillery, missiles, and bombs he exposes
himself to NATO retaliation against Russian troops on Ukrainian soil. NATO
should be prepared to target the invader with the same weapons that are used by
Putin, but only if and to the extent the invader is present on Ukrainian
territory. The justification for such intervention would be found in prevention
of further crimes against humanity. The United Nations could show its continued
relevance by having its General Assembly authorize such NATO intervention.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 125%;">Others have
written, and I agree, that it is high time that we deny Putin the right to
dictate the rules of the game. He is the aggressor and should be stopped. And
if sanctions alone don’t get the job done, we need to have the courage to
resort to even more punishing action. We simply cannot stand by idle while he
flattens one Ukrainian city after another. President Obama drew a redline in
Syria and then backed off from enforcing it against Assad and Putin. President
Biden should not make the same mistake. He should cash in on his credit with
other Western leaders and get NATO to draw the line for Putin, preferably with
a UN mandate. Putin should be told “stop here, or else” and he should be left
under no illusion as to whether the ‘or else’ part will be enforced. Once
the violence against civilians has ended, negotiations about the future of
security arrangements in Europe can start.<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /><p></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6324987414871925290.post-39139986974861614482022-02-24T17:04:00.000-08:002022-02-24T17:04:26.724-08:00NAKED POWER<p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The same
sense of foreboding that came over me when in 1956, when I was just twelve
years old, the Soviet Union moved on Budapest to put down the uprising of the
Hungarian people against the Soviet dominance of the country, is coming back to
me now that today Putin’s Russia is moving into Ukraine to impose its political
will on another nation yearning for deliverance from Russian imperialism. I have
never forgotten that on June 16, 1958 the Soviets finished the job by executing
the Hungarian prime minister Imre Nagy and I bet you that President Zelensky
has not forgotten that either even though he was not born yet when it happened.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">As in 1956, in
1968 when the Soviets put down the Prague velvet revolution, and in 2014 when
Putin overran and annexed Crimea, the sense of powerlessness overwhelms me.
With all its military, economic, and political might, the Western alliance has
nothing more than sanctions to respond with, is utterly incapable of changing
the course of events, and has no choice but to leave it to the Ukrainians to defend
themselves, their nation, and their freedom. Our power proves to be naked. The
only hope to offer Ukrainians is that in the long run they may yet prevail, as
the Hungarians and Czechs ultimately did when the Soviet Union broke apart.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">It is agony
to hear the Ukrainians under siege asking, like the Hungarians and the Czechs
did before them, “where is the West when we need them” and to have no answer,
no comfort, no help to give them. But the reality is that short of nuclear
power, the West has nothing in its arsenal that can militarily turn back the
Russians and Putin has clearly demonstrated that he has no time or respect for
diplomacy. The best we can hope for is that Putin, in his delusion and arrogance,
pushes his ambitions further that the Russian people and its military are
willing to go and in the process is digging his own grave. Kyiv may ultimately
become Putin’s Waterloo once the body bags are coming back to the motherland in
large numbers, the sanctions are seriously hurting the home front and the
oligarchs, and the ordinary Russians are wondering why they would be fighting
their Ukrainian brethren. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is like the USA
invading Canada or the Netherlands invading Belgium.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">With ‘Naked Power’
I mean power that on paper looks formidable but in practice is unusable. The
weakness of NATO is that its only serious deterrence to Russian aggression is
in its nuclear capabilities, but these awesome capabilities are matched, if not
outmatched, piece by piece by the Russian nuclear systems and, if put to use, are
certain to produce catastrophic mutual destruction. The lesson of WWII is that
Europe, without massive American reinforcement, lacks the military readiness
and cohesion to defend against a force that is organized to attack and is led
by a determined despot. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">There is a
US domestic component to this Ukrainian tragedy. As of the time of this writing
there is no official coordinated response from the Republican leadership to the
Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it is clear from utterances from former
President Trump and some of the right-wing media that in part of the GOP there
is more sympathy and support for Putin than for Ukraine. Undoubtedly fueled by
speculation that a win for Vladimir Putin will be seen by the American voters
as a loss for Joe Biden.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">There used
to be a time when the American political tradition was that the divisiveness
between the political parties would stop at the water’s edge (the water being
the ocean water). It meant that, when it came to conflict with foreign powers,
the parties would close ranks behind the commander in chief. That tradition has
gradually eroded by ill conceived military interventions, without prior
congressional approval, in the Balkans, in Iraq, and Afghanistan, but it never
has been flaunted as much as in recent days when the former President, his acolytes,
and his media voices, in defiance of the Biden foreign policy, have openly
sided with Putin in his invasion of Ukraine. While it remains to be seen
whether the GOP aisles in Congress will follow the Trump route and withhold support
for the sanction regime designed by the Biden administration in close
coordination with its European allies, it hints at the possibility that the GOP
will push this issue to the point that it will hurt the party in the upcoming
elections of 2022 and 2024. Just like Putin may find to have shot himself in
the foot by overreaching in his imperial ambitions to the point that he will
lose the support of the Russian military and the Russian people, the Trump
faction of the GOP may be disqualifying itself in the eyes of the American
voters by siding with Putin in his attack on Ukraine. We will find out in the
coming weeks and months.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 125%;">In the
meantime, we are relegated to standing by as the Ukrainians struggle to
maintain their sovereignty. If we don’t want to be confronted with the
nakedness of our power at the next go-around, America better gets busy
reorganizing NATO into a force that can actually deter any enemy with military
might that does not rely on a nuclear arsenal. Otherwise, article 5 of the NATO
charter may prove to be a empty letter. Putin may just be betting it is. Let’s
pray that Putin’s next move, if he does not get tripped by his Ukrainian escapade,
will not be directed towards the Baltic, where our resolve to stand by our
commitment under article 5 of the NATO charter would be sorely tested.<o:p></o:p></span></p>fransjagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254061009829376360noreply@blogger.com0