Month: October 2020

Check out this article about Trump’s life after losing the election in Politico. It’s even worse than I ever imagined.

Today’s NYT contains a series of opinion columns under the umbrella “What Have We Lost?” Predictably, the opinions range from “nothing but our illusions–America was always a racist, fascist country” to “Trump could have been a W. J. Bryan for the 21st century, but he blew it” to “Trump alone is destroying our country.” I’m going to rephrase the question a bit and try to provide a more nuanced answer to it.

The big, fundamental change in American politics over the last 12 years has been the evolution of the GOP from a fairly standard center-right party to a Trumpist party with no allegiance to liberal democracy. How did this happen? Here’s the chronology:

1. Reactionaries have been the core of the GOP since about 1980. For most of that time, however, they didn’t assert any kind of right to rule; all you had to do was throw them an occasional rhetorical bone, and they were happy. PBPs and CDs ran the party, and its real focus was on economic issues and foreign policy.
2. George W. Bush severely damaged the credibility of the CD and PBP factions with his unsuccessful Iraq War and the Great Recession.
3. Racial reactionaries were galvanized by the election of Barack Obama in 2008. You could see their prominence and impatience in the clear preference of the crowds for Palin over McCain during the campaign.
4. Fox News emerged as the mouthpiece and the intellectual leader of the reactionaries. It told them 24/7 that they were victims–strangers in the land that they and their white Christian ancestors had built. The government hated them. It was illegitimate. The end was near.
5. Demographic changes, of which the reactionaries were well aware, threatened the majority status of white people in this country.
6. Supreme Court decisions, most notably on gay marriage, further convinced reactionaries that the entire establishment was stacked against them.
7. For all that, the GOP nominated Mitt Romney, a quintessential establishment figure with roots in the CD and PBP factions, in 2012.
8. By 2016, the drumbeats of racial and cultural annihilation, most notably in the “Flight 93” article, had become too much to ignore. Trump was the beneficiary.
9. Still, Trump didn’t win a majority of the votes in the GOP primaries until very late in the process. His victory was attributable more to the number of candidates doing battle to win in other lanes than to his own doing. And so, the racial/cultural reactionary succeeded an establishment figure as the head of the party without any significant change in opinion within the GOP.
10. The real shift in opinion has occurred during the Trump era. Trump’s violations of democratic norms have been accepted by the mainstream of the GOP because the rank and file have been convinced that he is the only thing that stands between them and chaos, or, even worse, the gas chambers.

The bottom line here is that the trend line was clear even before Trump, and the raw materials have been there for decades, but Trump didn’t just expose them; he made them much worse with his divisiveness and his authoritarian leanings. We would not be where we are today if Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio had not been running in the same ideological lane in 2016. A President Rubio would have taken some of the same actions that Trump did, but we would not be talking about the likelihood of the Orban Option if he were in office.

Al Gore didn’t give up after the Supreme Court ruled against him in 2000 just because he was a decent American who didn’t want to damage the nation’s institutions, even though he was; he gave up because he thought the Court had the respect of the American people, and there was no appeal from its judgment. If we have a similar scenario with the Trump version of the Court, with Barrett joining the majority, will the result be the same?

No. This Court will be viewed by blue America not as an impartial caller of balls and strikes, but as an arm of the Republican Party whose decisions are not entitled to any deference. Biden and his followers will continue the fight, although, as I’ve noted previously, it’s hard to see any good options at that point.

You might be able to think of a hundred, but here are my top ten, in reverse order:

10. The regressive tax cut, which blew up the deficit and increased inequality without creating any kind of an investment boom.

9. The pointless trade wars, particularly with friendly countries.

8. Sucking up to dictators all over the world.

7. Alienating our democratic allies in the name of “America First.”

6. Using his position to advance his business interests.

5. Treating climate change as a hoax instead of an existential threat.

4. His narcissism and incompetence.

3. Ignoring science and common sense on the pandemic.

2. His authoritarian tendencies, which will only get worse in a second term, as no one will remain to keep him within the boundaries of decency and the law.

And the top reason is . . .

1. He divides the country every day by telling people like us that he hates us, and that we aren’t real Americans. Can you tolerate four more years of that?

The NYT has recently told us the following story about Trump and his dealings with his Chicago tower:

1. Trump makes a bad investment using money from Deutsche Bank and a hedge fund;
2. He can’t pay his obligations;
3. The creditors close in;
4. Consistent with his usual practice, Trump responds by hurling insults and filing suits against the creditors;
5. The creditors back down and either refinance the loans or forgive them;
6. Trump offsets the income arising from the creditors’ forbearance with other business losses, and so avoids paying any tax on it; and
7. Trump still owns a tremendous amount of money to DB. The loans will come due during his second term, if he has one. The loans are backed by a personal guarantee.

Trump, of course, says this proves he is a brilliant businessman. The record shows that he has a flair for dumping his financial problems on other people, but not for actually making profits, except with “The Apprentice.” My question is, are large creditors usually this spineless? If you or I behave aggressively when banks try to collect from us, will they back down, or is this just a Trump thing?

If it isn’t just a Trump thing, it doesn’t bode well for our financial system. Oh, and imagine DB trying to enforce the personal guarantee if Trump is still in office. Good luck with that!

Since it is clear that Trump’s only chance to win is by vote suppression and inappropriate intervention in the counting process by “his” Supreme Court, let’s review where we stand on the four big issues today:

1. CAN FEDERAL COURTS, AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW, OVERRIDE STATE LAW AND REQUIRE STATE AUTHORITIES TO EXTEND VOTE RECEIPT DEADLINES TO ADDRESS ISSUES CREATED BY THE PANDEMIC? The definitive answer to that question is no. There are two grounds for this: federalism concerns; and the desire to avoid chaos and provide a winner on or around Election Day. The Supreme Court’s position on this issue can be viewed as harsh and dogmatic, but it is legally defensible. The problem is that the two threads supporting it dictate different results in different situations, as we will see below.
2. DOES THE SUPREME COURT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE STATE COURTS AND OFFICIALS WHO EXTEND VOTE RECEIPT DEADLINES TO ADDRESS ISSUES CREATED BY THE PANDEMIC USING STATE LAW? This is a much thornier question; we know the Court is divided, and we don’t have a definitive answer, because Barrett hasn’t weighed in yet. The actual decisions thus far have narrowly favored the Democrats. Note that the two threads described above lead in different directions here: federalism concerns, which almost always dictate federal deference to state courts, support the Democrats; while the chaos rule supports Republicans.
3. WHAT WILL THE COURTS DO, IF ANYTHING, TO ADDRESS WIDESPREAD VOTER INTIMIDATION? That depends on whether it happens on Election Day. We won’t know until then. Don’t hold your breath waiting for effective judicial action on that front.
4. DOES THE SUPREME COURT, AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW, HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO ORDER THE STATES TO STOP COUNTING BALLOTS THAT CLEARLY WERE CAST LEGALLY UNDER STATE LAW AFTER NOVEMBER 3? This is the really important question that could determine the outcome of a close election. We know Trump will raise it. It is clearly frivolous, from a legal perspective, but we know that Thomas and Alito are both partisan hacks who will do anything to keep Trump in office, and a recent opinion by Kavanaugh contains language which suggests he may have some sympathy for it, although the actual decision in that case addresses different facts, so we don’t know for certain. If Kavanaugh and Gorsuch support Trump, it will come down to Barrett. That’s a scary proposition at more than one level.

If he loses the election, I have to think so, for the following reasons:

1. If the NYT is correct, Trump made a tremendous amount of money off of “The Apprentice.” This would be a similar way to repair his finances after his mistakes with unprofitable golf course developments in the last several years.
2. Like many other unscrupulous right-wing figures, he would make a perfect pitchman for bogus and defective products.
3. It would give him the perfect platform to maintain a direct connection with his millions of admirers, and thus maintain influence over the electorate and the leadership of the GOP. What better way to position himself to run in 2024, if he wants to do so?
4. It would guarantee him publicity and public adulation, which he values more than power, without any of the irksome responsibilities of the presidency, including travel and dealing with tiresome democratically elected world leaders.

In spite of what you may think at first glance, this is about baseball, not Deutsche Bank.

Kevin Cash and the Tampa Bay Rays had a formula: get a few innings out of their starters, and then turn over the game to a relay team of relievers who throw a hundred miles an hour. It worked admirably during the regular season, and to some extent through the first few rounds of the playoffs. During the World Series, however, it became apparent that the Dodgers’ hitters could handle the Rays’ high velocity relievers. Cash needed a Plan B.

Last night, Blake Snell was dealing. He had a low pitch count in the sixth inning, and everything was working. Sticking with him was the needed Plan B. Cash, unfortunately, stayed with Plan A, and took Snell out. The results were predictable. The Dodgers scored off the Rays’ relievers and won the game and the World Series.

There is an analogy here to the Trump campaign. Trump decided early on that he was going to run on his economic record and against socialism. When the virus and Biden intruded, he couldn’t see the opportunities that were presented; he stuck with Plan A in defiance of the facts. His reward for his lack of flexibility and imagination will become obvious next week.

Commonly understood, the “swamp” is synonymous with regulatory capture: wealthy, well-connected individuals and businesses exercise undue influence over legislators and bureaucrats who dream of crossing over and making more money in the private sector. Donald Trump, of course, sees things completely differently. In his view, the “swamp” consists of media people, civil servants, and judges who prevent him from ignoring the law and protocol and behaving capriciously and autocratically on behalf of himself (above all) and “real Americans.”

To that end, Trump has issued an executive order reclassifying large segments of the civil service as at will employees. No reasonable person can doubt that he plans to replace large numbers of competent, apolitical experts with toadies who will do whatever he wants regardless of the facts or the law if he wins the election.

Trump is right about one thing: civil servants and judges, not Democratic politicians, have been the real check on his arbitrary use of power over the last four years. He’s clearly determined to put an end to that as soon as possible. You can just imagine what the next four years will be like if he isn’t stopped next week.

Mitch McConnell and a majority of GOP senators are determined to prevent any meaningful stimulus before the election. That would appear to be inconsistent with the interests of Trump and several endangered GOP incumbents. What are they thinking?

They have given up on the idea of winning a free and fair election. In their eyes, one of two things will happen: the Republicans will win through vote suppression and their effective control of the Supreme Court; or they will lose, and the remaining Republican senators will be reasonably positioned to move immediately into Tea Party/bogus deficit reduction mode, as in 2009.

Do you understand that if you are part of a majority which decides to prevent the counting of votes in a manner consistent with state court decisions, thereby throwing the election to President Trump a few weeks after he put you on the Supreme Court, you will permanently stain your reputation, destroy the credibility of the Supreme Court, and tear the country apart?

Assume that Biden wins the election, but that his legislative initiatives are consistently frustrated by the Trump Supreme Court. Nothing positive has emerged from his court commission. As a result, court packing is his only viable option if he wants to get anything done. How many new positions should be created?

The objective would be to pick the minimum number required to prevent judicial obstruction, while providing a rationale that will seem fair to the general public and will discourage GOP attempts at retaliation in the future.

The number is four. That represents the two seats which were stolen from the Democrats and given to the Republicans. It would give the left a 7-6 majority on issues relating to voting rights. It would protect us from a Supreme Court which may well be determined to ignore the will of the majority and throw elections to Republicans on frivolous legal grounds.

The elderly were among Trump’s most reliable supporters in 2016, and have consistently voted for the GOP for the last two decades. It appears that Trump is about to lose a large percentage of them, and with them, the election. Why?

For these reasons:

1. The Democrats nominated an old white guy, so Trump wasn’t able to play the identity card the way he did in 2016. His obnoxious attacks on Biden’s acuity only made things worse.
2. The elderly, by and large, prefer to keep things on an even keel; they have less ability to react to change than younger people. Trump brings drama and danger every day.
3. And, of course, there was the virus. It wasn’t just that the government had no answers for the pandemic; it threatened the lives of the elderly by telling people to get on with their lives regardless of the medical consequences. Trump’s clear message was that the deaths of old people would be acceptable collateral damage in the process of opening up the economy and boosting the stock market. Is it any wonder many older voters don’t appreciate that?

Much attention has been given recently to the structural advantages the GOP enjoys in our political system as a result of the overrepresentation of rural areas in Washington. It has been estimated that the Democrats have to win the national popular vote by 2-3 percent to have any chance of winning the presidency, and 5-6 percent to win the Senate. How can this be addressed?

Recent history tells us the Electoral College problem is far from insuperable. The issue with the Senate, however, is far harder to deal with. Only a massive failure on the part of the GOP in government leads to effective Democratic control of both houses of Congress.

There are two ways to resolve the problem. The first is to create more states; the second is for the Democrats to show more tolerance for people who lean right in the culture wars. Rural residents don’t necessarily have an issue with a government that intervenes heavily in the economy (think farm subsidies here); they do, however, insist on legal safe spaces for Christians.

Which of these two solutions do you think is more plausible?

Most commentators have viewed Biden’s proposal for a bipartisan commission as a fairly lame attempt to avoid talking about court packing before the election. There is probably an element of that, but I think there is a much larger purpose that is being missed–a welcome effort to depoliticize the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process.

The process is horribly broken right now. Control of the Court, from a partisan perspective, turns on age and luck rather than any expression of popular will. Nominees refuse to answer perfectly legitimate questions about their judicial philosophy. Senators respond to the lack of information by engaging in personal attacks. Plenty of heat is generated, but almost no light.

Biden doesn’t need a commission to address court packing, but he does need one to discuss broader remedies to the problem, most of which would involve constitutional amendments. There are perfectly viable solutions, most notably getting rid of life tenure and staggering terms, that can be on the table if both parties agree. Since the Republicans currently have an advantage in appointments, why would they consent? Because the court packing option is available as leverage.