Republican Defeat? Don't Be So Sure

Republican Defeat? Don’t Be So Sure

P. Schultz

            The headline in Politico: “Republicans Yank Obamacare Repeal Bill: It’s a Staggering Set Back for President Trump and Speaker Ryan.”

            Well, maybe so or maybe not. Certainly it is setback for Trump but whether it’s a setback for Ryan and the Republicans remains to be seen and depends on what the Republicans wanted to achieve. If, for example, they wanted to perpetuate the status quo and to corral Trump, who has a tendency to think that he dictates what is going to happen, then this eventuality is anything but a setback for them.

            While is commonly thought that political parties are most interested in putting forward an agenda and then enacting it, because they are convinced that that agenda is in the public interest, it is just as commonly overlooked that our politicians are most interested in staying in power, which means very often perpetuating the status quo. Ask yourself: What interest did Republican members of the House of Representatives have in voting for the Trump supported Obamacare replacement legislation when they couldn’t even be sure that it would pass the Senate? Hence, they were put in the position of voting for a replacement that seemed anything but an improvement on Obamacare and which was and would cause them quite a bit of constituency dissatisfaction, when they could not be assured that their votes would be ratified by the Senate. So, they would put themselves on the line, put their offices on the line, only to be left swinging in the breeze by the Senate.  This is not a scenario that self-interested politicians embrace, whatever their “principles.”

            And they are no worse off for having opposed the Trump supported legislation. The only one worse off is, I am happy to say, the president. And it looks like Trump is going to have his hands full, to say the least, in successfully navigating or “dealing” with the political waters in D.C. 

The Government and How It Works

The Government and How It Works

P. Schultz

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/how-rank-and-file-republicans-overrode-trump-on-sessions-recusal

            The above piece, which appeared in Rollcall, is an excellent illustration of how our government, controlled as it is by an “establishment” that spans both political parties, works.

            As the article points out, Trump was overruled by “rank and file Republicans” when it came to deciding whether Jeff Sessions, the newly appointed attorney general, should recuse himself from any investigation about Russian involvement in our last presidential election, with or without the help of the Trump campaign.

            And, although the article does not mention it, this situation illustrates how the “establishment” is working to “discipline” Mr. Trump, teaching him how Washington works and that that establishment does not simply roll over and play dead simply because an outlier has been elected president. Whether Trump will “get” this message is far from certain. But if he doesn’t, then he, like Jimmy Carter, will wind up being perceived as one of our worst presidents.

Poor Donald: The Constitution is Working.....Against Him

Poor Donald: The Constitution is Working…..Against Him

P. Schultz

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/us/politics/trumps-budget-is-aspirational-reality-in-congress-will-change-it.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Some conservatives love to talk about the Constitution and how we need to get back to honoring that document, that supreme law, in order to set right the ship of state.  And, no doubt, they have a point. There are more than a few practices that have arisen in the last few decades – and before – that are inconsistent with the Constitution, e.g., that presidents may do almost anything that serves, in their minds, national security. But one thing these conservatives often don’t appreciate sufficiently is that the Constitution is, as one commentator put it, “a machine that goes by itself.” And this is what Donald Trump is – or should be – finding out now.

Consider the above article from today’s NY Times, entitle “Trump’s Budget is Aspirational.  Reality in Congress Will Change It.” In brief, what this article points out is that Trump’s proposed budget is or will be “dead on arrival” in the Congress, as expressed by Lindsey Graham, a leading Republican senator. And what this means is that that old constitutional principle, the separation of powers, is working and it is, as it was intended to work, working against the current president of the United States.  As the article puts it: “Like many presidents before him, President Trump is pushing a bold budget proposal. But for a business executive used to getting his way, he is likely to find, as his predecessors did, that final budgets often bear little resemblance to the originals after being run through the shredder on Capitol Hill.”

You see, as this makes clear, the political arena is a very different kind of place than the business arena, because in the latter “business executives” are “used to getting [their] way.” Presidents have no such luxury and, of course, the shouldn’t have it insofar as the political world is a far more complex place than the business world.  And because the political world is far more complex than the business world, it is not only necessary but commendable that different points of view are represented; for example, that the views of popularly elected representatives of the people, legislators, need to be taken into account along with those of elected and unelected executives, i.e., presidents and cabinet officials.

Or to put this in another way: bold proposals are not always, in fact rarely are, the way to go in politics. Bold moves, e.g., invading Iraq, making war in Asia, invading Cuba, or overthrowing democratically elected governments ala’ Iran, are most often than not disastrous. And this is especially true of bold moves not encased in legislation. Hence, the power and the prerogatives of the executive department, where boldness seems most appropriate, are limited.

This is the “theory” of our Constitution and one of its main characteristics, the separation of powers. And this is what is proving to be the undoing on the Trump presidency right now. In the near future, we will find out if Trump is educable, if he is able to comprehend and accept the reality of constitutional, i.e., limited government. If he does, he just might make a dent in the status quo as it is currently configured. If he does not, his presidency, like so many of those who have preceded him, will be perceived as a failure.  

Trump's Problem: The Presidency

Trump’s Problem: The Presidency

P. Schultz

            Donald Trump has a problem. And it’s the presidency.

            A president has no personal authority or power; s/he has or should have only official power, i.e., whatever powers are granted by her or his “office.” Trump, like many others, seems to think his power is personal, that it adheres in him, his person, not in his office. He is not a monarch or a pope; he is merely a president and this for only a designated amount of time.

            This distinction is difficult to keep straight because of, among other things, the White House, which was originally known as “the president’s palace.” The White House blurs the distinction between personal and official power because it is both a personal residence and an office, much as is Buckingham Palace or the Vatican. Hence, the presidency has – as both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists knew – monarchical characteristics, leading presidents to see themselves as something like monarchs, i.e., as those whose power is personal and exists whether performing official duties or not. As president, that Nixon had this idea is illustrated by his willingness to “crash a wedding” and, more importantly, by his assertion that “if the president does it, it is not illegal.” Officials can be held accountable whenever they “break the law,” but monarchs cannot.

            Being an egomaniac, Trump just assumes that his power is personal, not official. In his mind, he was elected but not to execute an office, but to, personally, “make America great again.” This is not, of course, an official duty. Hence, his office does not define or limit his power, does not confer authority upon him. It is, of course, not clear what the source of his power and authority are, but whatever their source, in his mind, Trump is not merely an official, an officer obligated to perform certain duties for the sake of the well-being of others. This is what Trump’s egotistical blustering is all about and its intensity reflects his awareness, however unconscious this might be, that he is a “public servant” and merely one of a number of executives, chief though he may be.

            This confusion is what makes Trump dangerous, just as it made Richard Nixon and others dangerous. But it is also what makes it fairly certain that the Trump presidency, like the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, and Richard Nixon, will self-destruct. For although the presidency is something like a monarchy, it is best described as a disguised monarchy, because it makes those occupying that office, unlike real monarchs, accountable for their actions, both private and public. And after the presidencies LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, all of whom were held accountable for their misfeasances, malfeasances, and abuses of power, I think we can rest assured that “judgment day” is coming for Trump. He can run but he cannot hide – thanks to the Constitution.

War and the United States

War and the United States

P. Schultz

            Rosa Brooks, a sometime employee of the Department of Defense, sometime lawyer, and full time mother, has written a book entitled: How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon. It is an interesting book, whose argument may be summed up as follows: Due to advancing technology, the boundary or boundaries between war and peace have been or are being erased. This is, Brooks argues, both an advance – now we can wage “humanitarian wars” and pinpoint those enemies we wish to assassinate – and a threat – overuse of the military promises to render it incapable of protecting us. So we had better come to grips with our new situation and make things right.

            A couple of thoughts struck me as I read Brooks’ monograph. First, there is no or little mention of politics throughout her book. That is, according to Brooks, we are in the midst of situation that has undermined the boundaries between war and peace but this has nothing to do with politics or, put differently, politics has nothing to do with the situation we are in. So, it’s as if all our politicians can do is to react to forces that they have had nothing to with unleashing. Which isn’t all that persuasive insofar as it is our politicians who have built, willingly and even eagerly at times, the military-industrial complex or the warfare state in which we are living. For example, the Department of Defense was created after World War II, despite the opposition, often intense and thoughtful, of conservatives. Meaning that it wasn’t necessary to create that department or to build “the Pentagon,” from which Brooks’ tales come. And if we as a nation hadn’t decided to create the Department of Defense – replacing what was called “the Department of War” – would the boundaries between war and peace be as blurry, as amorphous as they are today? In other words, we just didn’t “fall into” our current situation; we and our politicians chose it.

            Secondly, it seems to me that Brooks’ argument that our situation is new or significantly different today than in times past is questionable. As Brooks knows, Thomas Hobbes, whose political philosophy is connected to, underlines our political order, viewed the world as characterized by “a war of all against all,” that is, a “state of nature” in which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” or something like that. So, governments are created to render life more livable, to make human beings relatively free, prosperous, and secure. But Brooks does not recognize that this just means that “the state” doesn’t eradicate war; it merely manages war, tries to contain it, as best it can. Hence, at a very deep level, the boundaries between war and peace have always been unclear, with the phenomenon of “peace” being less real, more ephemeral than the phenomenon of “war.” It is not for nothing that our highest political office is occupied by one labeled the “commander in chief,” and not the “caretaker in chief.”

            So, if the lines between war and peace have always been less than clear, as we view our world, and if politics has something or should have something to do with clarifying these lines, then it would seem to me that without a consideration of the political choices that have been made in the name of the United States, e.g., the choice to create a Department of Defense and a Pentagon, any attempt to ameliorate our current situation for the sake of securing more peace and less war, as Brooks claims to want to do, is bound to fail. If, as I suspect, we as a people have embraced war as the means to improving the human condition, the cascade of war and, worse, of militarism will continue, destroying in its course those attempts, such as the laws of war, to limit or even humanize war.

            As an addendum, consider the following analysis by Jonathan Schell, as it seems appropriate here:

The Military Half by Jonathan Schell

            “Like most of the American military in Vietnam, the Army men who evacuated the villagers from Tuyet Diem and then destroyed the village saw what they were doing as only the first stage of a long-range benevolent plan for all of South Vietnam, in which the country would be rebuilt and then would develop a free and democratic government. The first stage of the plan – the destruction of the villages – usually went smoothly and gave rise to considerable optimism….But the second stage – the stage in which the Vietnamese and their American civil affairs advisers were to rebuild and reorganize….and were to stitch the whole society back together again – was infinitely more difficult… [A]nd the people who were to carry it out could not even begin to match the scale of destruction with their construction….Many optimistic Americans, including reporters as well as military men and civilians…, tended to set off the destruction caused by the military effort against the construction resulting from the civil affairs effort, seeing the two results as separate but balanced ‘sides’ of the war; and, looking at our commitment of men and materials, they were often favorably impressed by the size of the constructive effort, almost as though it was being carried out in one country while the military effort was being carried out in another. But, of course, the two programs were being carried out in the same provinces and villages, and the people who received the allotments of rice were the same people whose villages had been destroyed by bombs. The Vietnamese…felt the effects of the two programs, not as two abstract ‘sides’…but as a continuing experience… and, from their point of view, the aid given them … amounted to only a tiny measure of compensation … for enormous losses and suffering. Civil affairs officials … were puzzled when these hungry, tired people showed little gratitude for the help that the Americans and the GVN were giving them….” [196-98]

“Because along with the destruction of villages, American military operations brought death to many civilians, American civil affairs workers, no matter how well intentioned, no matter how well supplied they might someday become, could never, from the point of view of the villagers, ‘balance’ the sufferings caused by the military, or undo what they had done, which was often absolute and irreversible …. American civil affairs officials and workers faced a situation in which the cumulative effect of many abortive programs – all of them accompanied from 1965 on by the full force of the Americans’ overwhelming fire power – had been to bring disruption, destruction, and death to the country side on an immense scale and to leave among the people an indelible bitterness that no new program – unless it was a program to raise the dead – could hope to overcome.” [205-206]

Absent the power to resurrect the dead, as Schell puts it, the use of military power for humanitarian purposes is bound to fail, is bound to become inhuman.

Dark Money: A Review

Dark Money

P. Schultz

            Jane Mayer’s latest book, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, is of course an exposé. And while I love such books, it must be said that its usefulness is limited and it is, ultimately, unable to do what Mayer would like it to do – disempower or defeat the billionaires whom she says have funded what she calls “the radical right.”

            Exposes work with such phenomena as, say, child slavery, impure food and drugs, or environmental pollution. To expose such phenomena is to defeat or to pave the way for the defeat of them. Why? Because there is no justification for such practices.

            Exposes don’t work, are insufficient with regard to the phenomena Mayer is addressing in Dark Money because those she is exposing are convinced – and have convinced others – of the justice of their politics. As Aristotle pointed out, a very long time ago, oligarchs appeal to justice to legitimate their claim to rule. And their appeals are not simply baseless or merely a cover for their self-interest, although they serve in that capacity. The claims of the wealthy few that they deserve to rule are, of course, controversial, that is to say, partial or incomplete. But so too are the claims of the democrats to rule. Ala’ Aristotle, all claims to rule, either by the one, the few, or the many, are and remain controversial precisely because they are all partial or incomplete.

            So, to expose some people as oligarchs who are seeking to rule will not accomplish much, will not lead to their defeat in the political arena, as should be clear by now in the U.S. And showing, as Mayer does extensively, that they use deceit, deception, or secrecy to achieve their goals does not delegitimize their activities. To undermine our oligarchs, our billionaires of the radical right, as Mayer has it, requires showing how oligarchy is unjust, how oligarchs practice injustice rather than justice.

            This is where Mayer comes up short, which is why her expose’ becomes repetitive rather than enlightening. Again and again, Mayer exposes the doings of the her billionaires of the radical right, as if people did not know that our political order today was screwing them over. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing and we don’t actually need an expose’ to know that we, the many, are being screwed over by our government. What we need is a politics that revolves around questions of justice, not around questions of increasing the nation’s wealth and power. For the pursuit of wealth and power, as the most important political goals, legitimates oligarchy and the rule of oligarchs, while marginalizing the pursuit of justice, especially where the many are concerned.  A politics of justice, not a politics of wealth and power or a politics of greatness, is what is most needed now.

Elections and Voting

Elections and Voting

P. Schultz

            There is a strange kind of logic going around reflected by the question: Did those who voted for third parties cost Clinton the election? That this is strange logic can be seen by asking instead: How or why did Clinton cost the Democratic Party the election?

            The second question, which is from a party standpoint the appropriate one, is underlined by the fact that many, in fact, very many Democratic voters chose to stay home, chose not to vote for Clinton. And this represents many more voters than those who chose to vote for third parties. Clinton, quite obviously, did not appeal to a great number of Democratic voters, and especially did not appeal to Democratic voters in states where the election was close and Trump won by a relatively slim margin, e.g., Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

            The onus, given these numbers on non-voters, does or should fall on Clinton and the Democrats to understand why they failed and why they lost the election. To say that it was those who chose to vote for third party candidates is to imply that they bear the burden of Clinton’s and Democratic Party’s loss, which is, to put it bluntly, absurd. Clinton and the Democratic Party lost the election and, hence, they should bear the burden of their loss, not those who either chose to vote for third party candidates or chose not to vote at all.

            It is all pretty simple. Political parties are, or allegedly are, in the business of winning elections. When they lose, when they don’t win elections, that failure, that loss is on the party, not on those who chose not to vote for its ticket. The Democratic ticket in 2016 ended up a losing ticket, plain and simple. It was the Democratic Party that created that ticket. Ergo, the Democratic Party and its ticket are responsible for losing the election. It really is that simple.