Trump Has Convinced Me

A close friend, no fan of President Trump, texted me a few days ago, and said in part:

“As you know, I’m voting in person.  It’s not a political statement, but a practical statement.  The way your vote doesn’t count is screwing up filling out the ballot properly.  I know I won’t screw it up in person.”

I have also decided that I’m going to vote in person.  Although I’m at least as likely to screw up a mail-in ballot as our friend is, mine is a practical decision born of a different concern.  In a note a while back, I indicated, “I hope it won’t be necessary, but if it is, on November 3, for the country I want my children and grandchildren to live in, I will be willing to shake the hands of 20 desperately ill COVID patients and hug 20 more if that is what is required to reach a ballot box to vote against Donald John Trump.”  It’s time to back that up.  While measures that extreme probably won’t be necessary, given the malevolent manner in which Mr. Trump has sown distrust in a process which provides more of our people an opportunity to vote (an approach for which there is no credible evidence of any significant fraud having ever occurred in this country, and an approach he himself uses), the high likelihood that his lawyers will seek court orders to prematurely stop the counting of mail-in ballots in swing states such as Wisconsin, and the equally high likelihood of complicity to keep Mr. Trump in power by the bitter and resentful Republican Relics that control my state’s legislature, I refuse to be disenfranchised.  If there are but two Wisconsin votes recorded for Mr. Biden on Election Day [our friend undoubtedly being the other ;)], I want to know that one of them is mine. 

Impressions on RBG’s Passing: Part II

[If one intends to review this post, but has not yet read Part I (which is immediately below), I would start there  ;)]

Upon hearing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing and my estimation that it was likely that Republicans would immediately move to fill her seat, I feared that given progressives’ capacity for uncontrolled outrage, exacerbated by Republicans’ inexcusable refusal to act on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Garland four years ago, progressives wouldn’t be able to contain themselves.  In a random sampling of liberal outlets over the weekend, there appeared wall-to-wall liberal apoplexy about Republicans’ filling Justice Ginsburg’s seat.  I would suggest that such frenzy is counterproductive.  Bob Woodward reports in his book, Rage, that Presidential Advisor and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s “… core understanding of communication strategy … is, ‘Controversy elevates [Trump’s] message.’”  If – while it remains to be seen how big an “if” it is — Senate Republicans suffer no more than three defections in seeking to confirm Mr. Trump’s nominee, they hold the winning Senate procedural hand.  For progressives to expend undue emotional reserves on a contest that they’re likely to lose at the expense of a contest that they can win – the presidential election – is at best a political gamble and at worst, detrimental to their strategic electoral designs.

That said, there is a distinction between luxuriating in incendiary rhetoric and outwardly temperate expression (even if seething inwardly) of distress and concern with the impact another conservative Supreme Court Justice might have on American rights, and with the blatantly partisan nature of the Republicans’ maneuvers.  The Democrats’ target audience, persuadable swing voters, could be alienated if they make hyper-partisan declarations, but may well be amenable to reasoned arguments and indignation.  While Republicans will attempt to make the fight about abortion, I would offer that Democrats’ best approach will be the line that some have already adopted:  how another conservative Trump appointee might adversely impact the now widely-popular Affordable Care Act, with dispassionate commentary on the contrast between the Republicans’ refusal to proceed with Judge Garland’s nomination and their rush to judgement on the Trump nominee.  Then, get back to the Coronavirus.  They should follow the wise advice of Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Jules Winnfield, near the end of the film, Pulp FictionBe cool.  I’m somewhat reassured that at least Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden apparently understands this; reports indicate that he said nary a word about the Supreme Court during a recent trip to Wisconsin. 

Recent accounts indicate that the Trump Campaign is calling upon Mr. Biden to identify whom he would nominate to the Supreme Court if elected, and that Mr. Biden is rebuffing such calls.  Here, I think he is missing a golden opportunity.  He should declare that he will re-nominate Judge Garland.  I submit that such a declaration would be brilliant politically.  Progressives will grumble, but faced with the prospect of another Trump term and Trump Supreme Court nominees, will ultimately stay in line behind Mr. Biden; Mr. Garland will have the aura of having been previously nominated by Mr. Obama, providing Mr. Biden cover with his constituencies preferring a nominee of color; Mr. Biden’s naming of Judge Garland, a moderate, would destroy Mr. Trump’s argument that Mr. Biden is a tool of the “alt-left”; and Mr. Biden’s selection of Mr. Garland would seem fitting to swing state swing voters offended  by Republicans’ unfair treatment of him.  I believe that if Mr. Biden would name Judge Garland, he “wins” the Supreme Court debate with persuadable voters no matter what the Republicans do with a Trump nomination.

While political prognostication is engaging, Justice Ginsburg’s passing and the potential fallout has left me with a couple of more fundamental impressions.  The first – perhaps to the surprise of those who are aware of my obsessed keyboard frothing about Sen. Mitch McConnell’s contemptible, despicable, execrable dereliction of duty in refusing to proceed with the Senate confirmation process for Judge Garland – is that President Trump should put forth a nominee, and if, after appropriately-paced and illuminative confirmation hearings, the nominee is found to be judicially qualified and without other objective “disqualifying” factors such as drug addiction (not subjective legal views), the nominee should be confirmed.  Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides:  “[The President] … shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme [sic] Court.”  Four years ago, I wrote U.S. IA Sen. Charles Grassley, then the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee:  “I see nowhere in the [Constitution] any language limiting the President’s powers of nomination and appointment to the first three years of his/her term.”  Mr. Trump is the President.  He is within his term.  He has not just the “Power” but the duty to put forth a Supreme Court nominee.  As the late U.S. AZ Sen. John McCain once urged in another context:  Let’s return to regular order.  To me that needs to apply whether or not one finds “regular order” convenient.  As abhorrent as I find Messrs. Trump and McConnell, there is no value to enshrining the notion that a President cannot perform a vital Constitutional function a quarter of the time.  As our mothers taught us:  Two wrongs don’t make a right.

We were with good friends [at a socially-distanced outside gathering ;)] when word came of Justice Ginsburg’s death.  All felt a deep sadness both for the passing of a great American and for what it might mean for our country.  My thoughts initially drifted to the likely political ramifications of Ms. Ginsburg’s passing, but as I contemplated the fire, I considered that no issue so divides our people as does abortion — which Supreme Court nominations have come to symbolize in the public mind — and that Justice Ginsburg’s passing, coming right when it did – neither early enough in Mr. Trump’s term that progressives would ultimately emotionally reconcile themselves to another conservative Supreme Court Justice, nor after Mr. Biden’s inauguration (if such occurs), when conservatives would emotionally accept that Ms. Ginsburg would be replaced by another liberal – could violently deepen the cultural chasms already existing between us; that the impending Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process has the potential to further rip and salt our deepest wound. It is easy to presume that as her condition reached its final stages, Justice Ginsburg explored with her physicians whether there was any way to keep her medically alive through January 20.  There obviously wasn’t. Russian President Vladimir Putin couldn’t have drawn it up any better.

Notwithstanding Mr. Biden’s apparently encouraging lead in the polls, as we enter what I consider the most dangerous months for the future of our democracy since the defeat of Nazi Germany, it is difficult not to have concerns; we seem beset on so many sides. Yet, I find solace in Proverbs 3:5:  “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not .…”  

May we hold ourselves together.

Impressions on RBG’s Passing: Part I

[Comment:  These notes frequently take shape over several days.  Although I dislike regurgitating old ground, I have taken the liberty of leaving in concepts drafted before they were confirmed by subsequent events or expressed by pundits, such as the likelihood that President Trump would nominate a woman for Justice Ginsburg’s seat and the political conundrum that the Justice’s passing creates for GOP Senators such as Sen. Collins.]

I never engaged in Constitutional Law during my decades of law practice, and never developed any detailed understanding of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s jurisprudence beyond that she was a liberal icon.  What I found notable about her was the extent to which she “broke through” to the public as a woman’s rights icon and a person of grit and stamina respected across the political spectrum.  Even President Trump, who never misses an opportunity to be churlish in his description of anyone who doesn’t agree with him, was gracious in his initial comments after learning of her passing.  I’d wager that if last week, a cross section of Americans was asked to name members of the Supreme Court, the highest percentage would have mentioned Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Roberts, and Brett Kavanaugh [I suspect that the latter would rather not be as readily remembered as he is  ;)].     

At this point, the political maneuvering is well underway.  “All politics is local” is a well-known maxim most closely associated with the late former Democratic Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, Jr.; I would suggest that the maxim is a subtler way of saying, “All politics is personal survival.”  How Justice Ginsburg’s passing will affect individual politicians will seemingly vary greatly.  We’ll get to the President in a minute.   

First, the easiest:  Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  The play for Sen. McConnell – or if you prefer, Moscow Mitch, The Man of Many Chins, or The Evil Weasel — is obvious:  push the nomination through.  Mr. McConnell views the conservative stacking of the federal judicial system as his legacy.  He has no qualms about fairness or decorum.  He undoubtedly realizes that this could be his last chance to put another conservative on the Supreme Court.  Even so, perhaps the most important point for him:  despite the egregious hypocrisy involved in proceeding with efforts to confirm any Trump nominee given his thwarting of former President Barack Obama’s nomination of U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland four years ago, I’ll venture that the majority of Kentuckians will approve of his moving forward.  Such an approach may well seal his victory in his 2020 U.S. KY Senate race.  At a guess perhaps born of northern ignorance, an aggressive Republican move also seems to help Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (SC), Thom Tillis (NC), and Sonny Perdue (GA) in their tighter-than-expected races.

At the other end of the spectrum is U.S. ME Sen. Susan Collins and perhaps other Republican Senators in close races in more moderate states, such as Republican Sens. Martha McSally (AZ), Cory Gardner (CO), and Joni Ernst (IA).  None will win without rabid support among committed conservatives but perhaps can’t win without some support from moderates who may be offended by a blatantly political Republican move to cram a nominee into Ms. Ginsburg’s seat. Calls by Sen. Collins and her friend, U.S. AK Sen. Lisa Murkowski, to delay any Senate confirmation vote until after Election Day demonstrate that they understand that the upcoming process places Sen. Collins in acute political peril. The decision by Messrs. Trump and McConnell to proceed — although it arguably reduces their odds of maintaining a Republican Senate majority in January — simply confirms that at bottom, all politics is … personal survival.

As to the President:  He has already indicated that he intends to send a nominee to the Republican-controlled Senate in short order.  The nominee will undoubtedly be an avid cultural conservative and pro-life advocate.  I’ll be shocked if it’s not a woman; the Trump Administration will attempt to defuse by at least a bit the feminist ire that would result from women “losing” a seat on the Court.  No matter whom the President chooses, going forward with the nomination is the obvious play for him.  He would absolutely grievously offend and lose vital support among evangelicals and cultural conservatives if he doesn’t proceed.  The beauty of this from his perspective – although he has already proven too ham-handed to take advantage of it – is that he could have gained political advantage for himself – all he cares about – and while seemingly sticking to the high ground:  a Supreme Court Justice has died; he’s President; he’s going to put forth a nominee to fill the seat, as the Constitution requires; he had no part in the Senate’s lack of action on the Garland nomination; what the Senate does with his nomination is up to the Senate.  Since he isn’t subtle enough to stick to that tack, Mr. Trump could well lose some swing state suburban moderates who may be concerned that an unfairly partisan rushed confirmation process will endanger pro-choice and health care protections, but this is obviously an electoral risk he intends – and from the standpoint of his cold political need for staunch religious conservative support, has — to take.

All that said, I would submit that the most important political advantage the nomination provides Mr. Trump:  every day the discussion is about the Supreme Court and not about the Coronavirus is a good political day for him.

In an effort to keep these posts to at least a somewhat manageable length, what remains of this note will appear in Part II.

A Profile in Courage

Other obligations have limited the time I’ve had to devote to these pages in recent days, but I want to note the video posted yesterday by Olivia Troye, attached below.  There are now so many “tell-all” accounts regarding President Trump that they no longer seem worth noting [I declare as I’ve spent some time going through Bob Woodward’s book, Rage ;)]; to borrow from the Lord, all that have ears to hear regarding the President’s malign character and blatant incompetence … have already heard.  Even so, I want to echo what I’ve seen a couple of others note:  Ms. Troye, a lifelong Republican who until recently served as Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism Advisor to Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Pence’s lead staff member on the COVID-19 response, is, out of love of our nation, risking what has been shaping up to be a noteworthy career to speak out about Mr. Trump’s manifest unfitness for the presidency.  Her courage is of the type shown by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and others who might be described as “just regular public servants,” and puts to shame all of the gutless current Republican officeholders who know – who know – that the President is unfit, people such as former Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan who ran from the field with their tails between their legs rather than speak out about the President, and most particularly … her former boss, Vice President Pantywaist.  The selfless courage of Americans such as Ms. Troye provide our greatest hope for the future.

Initial Reflections on Woodward Book, Rage

As I suspect all that wish to be aware are aware, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward has published a new book, Rage, including many hours of interviews with President Trump in the early months of this year in which the President made plain that he understood the Coronavirus’ virulence and its potential for spread among Americans much more clearly than he publicly articulated at the time or for months thereafter (or arguably, given his inconsistency, to this day).  I haven’t yet read the book [I have signed up to get it upon its general release  ;)], but the interview recordings Mr. Woodward has made available along with the book’s preliminary release – tapes undeniably bearing Mr. Trump’s voice – seem to warrant some initial impressions.

On March 19, after months of scoffing at the severity of the disease or the likelihood that it would spread in America, Mr. Trump told Mr. Woodward, “I always wanted to play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.”

Sometimes Presidents have to lie.  It’s a part of the job.  I am confident that if President Harry Truman had been asked the day before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima whether he had approved use of such a weapon at that time at that site, he would have denied it.  If President Barack Obama had been asked the day before the raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden whether such a raid was imminent, he would have denied it.  I suspect that President Franklin Roosevelt felt less optimism about a successful outcome of the war against Japan than he expressed the day after Pearl Harbor, with the American Pacific Fleet then in tatters and little between the Sea of Japan and San Francisco Bay to defend us against the Imperial Japanese Navy.

I would submit that Mr. Trump’s false representations fall into a completely different category.  He was neither lying in the interest of national security nor seeking to maintain the mood of our people at a time – such as the day after Pearl Harbor – when there was nothing they could realistically do but hope.   I would suggest that what Mr. Trump really meant when he spoke to Mr. Woodward on March 19 was, “I don’t want to create a panic in the financial markets, since my only hope for re-election is a healthy economy.”  I would assert that the Coronavirus, unlike Hiroshima, bin Laden, or Pearl Harbor, presented a danger akin to a hurricane, in which affirmative efforts by our people, had they been told the truth, could have saved thousands upon thousands of lives.  If told a Category 5 hurricane is coming, coastal Americans evacuate, board up windows, collect supplies.  If they’re told a light tropical storm is approaching … they don’t.

Although Americans live in different information silos and I doubt that Mr. Woodward’s revelations – any more than recent reports that Mr. Trump was advised early this year that Russia had put bounties on the heads of American soldiers in the Middle East or that Mr. Trump has declared those that served in Vietnam “suckers” and those that have died in battle “losers” — will have an adverse impact on Mr. Trump’s cult support.  I would venture, however, that Mr. Woodward’s account could have a pivotal impact upon the election because of the effect that it might have on those reluctant 2016 Trump voters not entirely in the right-wing information silo who polls indicate were leaning toward Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden in the first half of the summer but have more recently been considering returning to Mr. Trump.  Mr. Woodward’s book turns the nation’s eyes back from our sporadic urban unrest to the Coronavirus, and appears likely to command the media spotlight for days.  It seems a prime subject for inquiry at the first presidential debate on September 29.  If the attention on Mr. Woodward’s reports reduces wavering 2016 Trump voters’ return to the President by even 1% in pivotal states, such could have a decisive electoral impact.

As to Mr. Woodward:  notwithstanding my extremely high regard for – and frequent references to — the late Author and New York Times reporter David Halberstam, I would submit that if the tapes of Mr. Woodward’s interviews of President Trump indeed help persuade significant segments of independent voters to repudiate Mr. Trump, Mr. Woodward’s work here, taken together with his Watergate reporting, will mark him as the most influential political journalist of his time.

Kenosha, Portland, and a Lesson from Mr. Lincoln … and Mr. Putin

As all are aware, on August 25, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, apparently drawn to Kenosha, WI, from his residence in Illinois by the protests attending the August 23rd shooting of Jacob Blake, killed two protestors with the AR-15 rifle he had brought with him.  His attorneys assert that he was defending himself.  This past Saturday night, following a day in which 600 pro-Trump vehicles had amassed in a Portland, OR suburb before proceeding into the city, Aaron Danielson, a member of Patriot Prayer, a far-right Portland group, was shot dead in Portland; the Wall Street Journal reports that police have an interest in Michael Reinoehl, allegedly a member of Antifa.  It’s not clear from the account whether Mr. Reinoehl resides in the Portland area.  While Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden has condemned violence on all sides in all places, President Trump has at least tacitly supported Mr. Rittenhouse.

Events are spinning out of control.  I consider these protest-related shootings conceptually different from the precipitating incidents involving George Floyd and Mr. Blake.  Although those atrocities are recent examples of the centuries-old pattern of systemic police brutality against African Americans, I would submit that they were still in a sense random.  Neither Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin nor Kenosha Officer Rusten Sheskey could have desired the results they brought about; aside from any feelings of human remorse they may or may not feel, they undoubtedly realize that no matter what the outcome of official proceedings regarding their conduct, their lives will never be the same.  (Indeed, I suspect that Mr. Chauvin, given the inhuman nature of his conduct toward Mr. Floyd, will need to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life).

The Kenosha and Portland protest shootings seem to me to present a different type of danger – that of a society beginning to unravel.  They conjure the impression of opposing armies intentionally positioning themselves for battle.  Heretofore random impulses seem poised toward coordinated activity.  In Gettysburg, Bruce Catton shows that the great battle didn’t just happen to occur there; both armies intentionally headed to meet there because of its perceived tactical advantages. Kenosha police have indicated that the majority of those arrested during the last week of protests come from outside Kenosha.  The Journal reported Monday that after a couple of nights of protests, former Kenosha Alderman Kevin Mathewson posted a “call to arms” on his “Kenosha Guard” Facebook page, and that Mr. Mathewson stated that “thousands responded that they would be attending.”  We now not only have authorities – be they scared, misguided, or malign – taking action against peaceful protestors; we not only have citizens – whether misguided or malign – destroying property; we now have our citizens traveling to where they can shoot at each otherover political beliefs.  These are not “militia”; they are army and cop wannabes exploiting our current unrest to either live out their fantasies or unleash their hateful tendencies. 

I think all but President Trump’s most cultish supporters would acknowledge that he sees division among our citizens to be to his political advantage.  He has exacerbated Americans’ tensions and granted our unstable elements the permission “to act out” to the extent that we now have levels of unrest unseen since the 1960s. How anyone can offer even faint support for a 17 year-old-boy who traveled across state lines and killed two people with a semi-automatic weapon more than strains reason; it constitutes insanity.  I would submit that Mr. Trump is going to Kenosha today – in defiance of the requests of both WI Gov. Tony Evers and Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian – because he wants a riot – the riot he wanted and didn’t get (because nobody showed up) at his embarrassing June campaign rally in Tulsa, OK. 

While it would be appropriate to conclude this note with a reference to Abraham Lincoln’s observation that “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” what came to mind as well is striking similar advice from a most unexpected source:  Russian President Vladimir Putin.  The principle that emerges most prominently from the early chapters of Mr. Putin, by Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy – a work more psychological profile than biography — was at least to me unexpected:  President Putin’s obsession, in some ways incongruous given his dictatorial ways, that the Russian government needs to maintain a genuine general affinity with and among Russian citizens if Russia is to survive as a state.  Ms. Hill and Mr. Gaddy state that Mr. Putin considers the disintegration of Tsarist Russia and the USSR to have resulted from those regimes’ failures to keep faith with Russian citizens (which he interestingly considers to include all who live within Russia’s borders of any ethnicity, resisting efforts by some Russian officials to elevate ethnic Russians).  Mr. Putin’s premise that the need for unity among citizens is the key to a nation’s strength, while presumably the insight underlining his efforts to sow discord among our people, nonetheless offers leadership precepts directly at odds with Mr. Trump’s instincts and actions.

Hill and Gaddy write:  “[J]ust before the 2011 Russian parliamentary elections … Putin proclaimed:  ‘… Let those who proclaim the slogans of social and ethnic intolerance, and are smuggling in all kinds of populist and provocative ideas that actually lead to national betrayal and ultimately to the breakup of our country, know that we are a multinational society but we are a single Russian nation, a united and indivisible Russia.’”

While I generally strongly believe that we can only have one President at a time, right now, in practical terms, we don’t have any President.  Whether by design or accident, President Trump’s course furthers Russian strength while disintegrating our own.  Mr. Biden must summon what it takes to point out to those of us open to reason the heightening danger of our discord.  He needs to continue to make clear – if necessary with a bullhorn, as George W. Bush did after 9/11 – that while we as a people need to rise up to address the sins visited upon our oppressed, we must at the same time condemn with equal passion violence and destruction … and that, as Messrs. Lincoln and Putin, as diametrically different as they are, each observed a century and a half apart: a nation’s survival depends on its capacity to unite.

On Mr. McCain and Mr. Rivers

There are two links below – the first to a tweet by Conservative Bill Kristol contrasting remarks by President Trump and the late U.S. AZ Sen. John McCain when each was campaigning for the presidency, the second to Los Angeles Clippers’ Head Coach Glenn “Doc” Rivers’ comments regarding the recent police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, WI.  The 2008 remarks of Sen. McCain, taken together with those of Coach Rivers, offer the most eloquent rebuttal to the claims currently being spewed at the Republican National Convention.

On Mr. Trump … and the Prophet Ezekiel

A couple of weeks ago at a Cleveland campaign stop, President Trump indicated that Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden, a practicing Catholic, was “against God,” and that if elected president, Mr. Biden will “hurt God” and “hurt the Bible.”  I found the President’s rant both absurd and shocking, but it was, like so many before it, shortly driven down my stream of consciousness by Mr. Trump’s continuing torrent of malign inanities. 

I am also a Catholic, albeit deeply flawed.  What caused me to recall Mr. Trump’s Cleveland rant – faith-based attacks uttered by one who for all practical purposes espouses racism, has bragged about grabbing women by their private parts, has belittled the handicapped, has approved the intentional separation of children from their parents at our borders, has sought to downplay the scope and effect of a deadly virus upon our people in order to enhance his own political fortunes, and has most recently referred sympathetically to Qanon, an alt-right fringe group embracing the notion that some Democrats are Satan-worshipping pedophiles — was the following, read during one of this week’s daily Masses:

Thus says the Lord GOD:  Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been pasturing themselves!  Should not shepherds, rather, pasture sheep?  You have fed off their milk, worn their wool, and slaughtered the fatlings, but the sheep you have not pastured.  You did not strengthen the weak nor heal the sick nor bind up the injured.  You did not bring back the strayed nor seek the lost, but you lorded it over them harshly and brutally.  So they were scattered for the lack of a shepherd, and became food for all the wild beasts. ….

As I live, says the Lord GOD, because my sheep have been given over to pillage, and because my sheep have become food for every wild beast, for lack of a shepherd; because my shepherds did not look after my sheep, but pastured themselves and did not pasture my sheep ….

I swear I am coming against these shepherds.  I will claim my sheep from them and put a stop to their shepherding my sheep so that they may no longer pasture themselves. ….”  

Ezekiel, 34: 1-5; 8; 10

Mr. Biden’s acceptance speech last night seemed to me most fundamentally that … of a caring shepherd.  Notwithstanding Mr. Trump’s references to God and the Bible, I think it’s fair to assume that the President has little familiarity with the Book of Ezekiel.  From his perspective, perhaps just as well.

Mr. Bloomberg: Where Are You?

President Trump’s repeated claims (without any evidence) that mail-in-voting creates election fraud, buttressed by his recent (and, amazingly, acknowledged) efforts to impede the United States Postal Service’s activities because he perceives that an efficient November mail-in voting process will assist the Democrats’ electoral prospects, is simply the latest evidence of his willingness to do anything to remain in power.  (Mr. Trump did backtrack a bit late last week to indicate that he would agree to a Coronavirus relief package that contained funding for the post office.  Even if money is allocated, I fear it may have little effect unless accompanied by nonpartisan oversight ensuring that the funding is promptly spent in a manner that actually facilitates nationwide balloting.)  Consider the malevolent genius of it.  Mr. Trump has picked an election element – mail-in-voting – that is particularly vital in this COVID era, and labeled it the source of election fraud.  (He could actually more credibly claim that elections held on Tuesdays have historically been subject to a certain level of fraud.)  If Mr. Trump loses to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden, he hopes to have instilled a belief in at least a segment of his millions of followers – who seemingly believe anything he, his cohort and his propagandists at Fox News and other alt-right media trumpet – that the election was stolen from him (and them) by fraudulent mail-in voting.  What happens if he refuses to concede despite a tight but discernable loss?  Even if he departs, his claims of fraud are an attempt to create popular unrest with the potential to cripple a Biden Administration while continuing a media spotlight for Mr. Trump – the latter unquestionably his primary focus.  But even if Mr. Trump wins, the recent demonstrations in Portland and elsewhere are a clear portent that if those opposing Mr. Trump believe that the Administration’s actions have stolen the election from them, riots will ensue across the nation. Mr. Trump will use these as a pretext to impose autocratic restraints upon those who oppose him.  A close outcome in either direction accordingly seems likely to threaten the American way of life.  I would suggest that in order to reclaim our future, Mr. Biden must not only win; the Democratic ticket must determine a way to win by decisive margins in a sufficient number of the battleground Electoral College states (Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin) to yield an impressive Electoral College margin.  I would submit that the Democrats need to wage their political war between now and Election Day on two fronts, and that at this stage, their overall success perhaps depends less upon the conventional – persuasion – and more upon the unconventional – education

The conventional is straightforward:   political professionals and pollsters of all stripes seemingly agree that although polls are starting to tighten, if all legally-eligible voters that wish to vote in November are actually able to vote and have their votes counted, Mr. Biden will defeat Mr. Trump in the Electoral College.  I would assert that deep antipathy among the electorate toward Mr. Trump is “baked in.”  Mr. Biden doesn’t need to win over any current Trump supporters to secure the presidency; he needs only a persuasion campaign to stave off material erosion in his current level of support.  Unless either Mr. Biden or presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee and U.S. CA Sen. Kamala Harris commit a grotesque gaffe during their respective debates with their Republican counterparts, the Electoral College victory seems near at hand.  Apparently reassuring – but I fear not enough by itself to secure a stable American future.

In my view, to facilitate Mr. Biden’s victory and enhance its legitimacy, the Democrats and their allies need to mount an extensive and effective education campaign – admittedly bordering on propaganda, to counteract the Trump and related alt-right barrage – to educate the electorate in the six battleground states regarding the states’ respective mail-in voting processes.  Even where local officials are well-meaning, neither local governments nor battleground state Democratic organizations have the funding nor the expertise required to develop and broadcast sufficient effective informational spots to reassure an electorate that polls show has increasing reservations about mail-in voting.  I see literally 25 different spots:  Four for each of the battleground states, to be run in the states’ respective progressive and independent markets, which in turn address:  (1) the given state’s voter registration requirements and deadlines, how to register online (all six allow online registration), and how a voter can obtain assistance for an in-person or online registration process; (2) the period within which the given state’s registered voters can request a ballot online, how to request a ballot, and any state nuances regarding the ballot’s completion; (3) a notice of the date by which registered voters should mail in their ballots to be confident that the votes will arrive in time to be tabulated; and (4) a notice that the date by which registered voters could confidently expect that their mailed-in votes would be tabulated has passed coupled with the observation that any eligible voters wishing to vote that haven’t already sent in their ballots should plan to vote in person, together with Coronavirus safety tips and information as to how the voter can find his/her voting place.  A last spot should be run predominantly on Fox News and other conservative outlets in conservative markets nationwide and describe, primarily through Republican election officials, the incredibly low incidence of historic mail-in voting fraud and lay expectations that tabulation delays will necessarily attend anticipated massive mail-in voting.

The effort, expertise, and cost to create, produce and broadcast accurate infomercials in the appropriate outlets would be an enormously expensive proposition – generally beyond the grasp of any campaign.  At the same time, if the content is appropriately cast, such spots would seem outside the proscriptions of campaign finance law.  At one point during former New York City, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s campaign for the presidency, the New York Times reported that Mr. Bloomberg indicated that he “wouldn’t rule out” spending as much as $1 billion to defeat Mr. Trump.  During his campaign, Mr. Bloomberg showed that he has not only the funds but the team expertise necessary to create effective campaign spots. 

Mr. Bloomberg:  Where are you?