Another Disturbing Trend

I favor violating the rights of right-wingers, as a general principle.

I favor violating the rights of right-winger because nothing else will make right wingers sit up and pay attention to the danger of the government's daddy functions.  And when right wingers become concerned about government in its daddy functions, they manage to get things done.

When Bill Clinton was President, Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building killing 168 people.  His actions drew attention to the militia or Patriot movement -- private armies stockpiling arsenals and training in the woods to offer armed resistance to the federal government.  The argument had been going around for some time that the Second Amendment allows any law-abiding citizen who feels wronged by government to offer armed resistance, and some people were taking that right seriously.  One killed 168 people.  Clinton asked Congress for an expansion in his powers to deal with armed militias.

This led to a great cry of alarm among conservatives that honest citizens might be persecuted just for training private armies to engage in violent revolution when a Democrat was in the White House.  They resisted the proposal.  The ACLU and other left-wing civil libertarians also came out against the proposals, not because they supported the right of armed resistance to a Democratic President, but because they believed that people who did so still deserved to have their civil rights respected.  The alliance was powerful and the measures were defeated.

Under the Bush II Presidency, Mideastern terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center.  Bush asked Congress for increased powers to spy on Muslims.  There was some resistance from the ACLU and company, but the right wing all lined up behind Bush and impugned the patriotism of anyone who questioned his actions.  The measure passed.

Under the Obama Presidency, even the suggestion that there might be right-wing terrorists led to a great outcry and any further action ended before it started.

I am not a big fan of anti-government militias or right-wing terrorists, but I do believe that their civil rights should be respected.  And when conservatives rushed to champion militias and white supremacists, they were at least defending the civil rights of regular guys on the street.

This time is different, though.  It doesn't surprise me that with Donald Trump as President the NRA no longer I thinks that armed resistance to the federal government is patriotic and scarcely even seems sure that criticism is allowed anymore.

No, what I find disturbing is the reaction to finding out that members of the Trump campaign (or administration) were targets of investigation for ties to Russia.  Revelations that Carter Page was wiretapped, or that Trump was investigated as counter-intelligence threat, or that Paul Manafort had his bail revoked for witness tampering, or that lower level officials are "flipping" on higher level ones.

This has led to an outcry, a denunciation of these violations of Team Trump's rights.  But not to any sort of general civil libertarian uproar, any overall cry that could protect the rights of regular guys on the street.  No, it has been a fairly open pronouncement that running for President, let along being elected, exempts the candidate, or the office-holder and anyone he chooses to protect from any sort of legal scrutiny, no matter what he does.

So long, of course, as the candidate in question is a Republican.

How to Make Parties Police Their Own

Related to the issue of how to deal with politicians with an unsavory episode in their past is how to deal with politicians with unsavory behavior in their present.  Here, theoretically, the answer is simpler.  There should be an investigation.  The investigation should not become a kangaroo court.  It should seriously look into the facts and allow the politician to opportunity to defend himself.  But if the misconduct is serious enough, then the politician should resign.

Everyone, I think, would agree with this in theory.  But it becomes very hard to live up to these standards when that means handing the office over to a member of the opposing party.  The uproar in Virginia is an obvious example.  Democrats were quick to call for Northam's resignation, so long as they thought he had an excellent successor in Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax.  But when Fairfax was charged with rape and the Democratic Attorney General also turned out to have worn blackface, suddenly everything changed.

Likewise, Democrats called for Senator Al Franken of Minnesota to step down for accusations of pinching women's bottoms, but found it in their hearts to forgive Senator Bob Melendrez of New Jersey for accusations of bribery.  They made various excuses, but we all knew the real reason.  Franken's replacement would be appointed by a Democratic governor; Melendrez' replacement would be appointed by Republican Chris Christie.

As for Republicans, let us be real.  Donald Trump could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and Mike Pence could supply the gun and hide it afterward and help Trump clean the blood off his clothes, and Republicans would refuse to impeach because Nancy Pelosi would be next in line. 

The answer is obvious.  We should ensure that a politician who prematurely departs office will have to be replaced by a member of the same party.  Many states have laws that if a US Senate seat falls vacant the governor must appoint a member of the same party as the former Senator.  I favor such laws and would add that, as moral matter admittedly not enforceable, the Governor should appoint someone as similar as possible to the departing Senator, minus whatever infirmity caused the seat to be vacant.  (It used to be customary to appoint the widows of Senators who died in office). 

And I would favor taking the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Temp of the Senate out of the line of succession for Presidency and go straight to the Cabinet instead.  If Donald Trump shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and Mike Pence was his accomplice, I am sure Republicans could live with a President Mike Pompeo.

Reflections on the "20-20 Rule"

The blackface uproar in Virginia may have died down, but who can doubt there are plenty more scandals where that came from.  Let's face it.  There is none righteous that sinneth not.  Every candidate will always turn out to have some sort of discreditable episode.  If being perfect one's entire life is made a requirement for office, then no one will qualify.*  That's why I think we should consider Kevin Drum's 20-20 rule.  Actions taken more than 20 years ago or before the age of 20 should be forgiven on three conditions:

• The offense must not be too serious.
• The candidate must have cleaned up his act and stopped offending since.
• The candidate must honestly own up to whatever it was.

That third condition is usually where candidates trip up.  Consider two recent examples.

Brett Kavanaugh was clearly a drunken, obnoxious frat boy during his high school and college years.  Two women made credible but uncorroborated accusations of sexually misconduct that could plausibly been seen by a drunken frat boy as a harmless prank and by the woman involved as a serious rape attempt. No one disputed that during his legal and judicial career, his behavior toward women was exemplary.  So, I would say that Kavanaugh met the first two conditions.  But he utterly failed on the third one by denying the obvious -- that he had been drunk and obnoxious at the time and pretending to be a near-saint.  So we were treated to the repugnant spectacle of Senators going through Kavanaugh's high school year book, looking for (and finding) evidence of any failing, no matter how minor.  An honest acknowledgement and apology cave have spared us the ghastly business.

So, too, with Ralph Northam.  Once year books become fair game, who knows what they will turn up.  In Northam's case, it was a photograph of him and another student posing, one in blackface, and one in Klan robes.  It was in terrible taste, but not any sort of crime.  And the caption was innocuous.  ("There are more old drunks than old doctors in this world, so I think I'll have another beer."  So why not just show a barroom scene?).  So it meets the first condition.  Northam has had a perfectly good record on race since, while Virginia Republicans are increasingly going neo-Confederate.  So the second condition is also met.  But Northam, too, is completely failing on the third condition, making comments so incoherent and ill-thought-out that it would be a favor to handcuff him, stuff something in his mouth, and lock him in the closet till this blows over.  

And with the Democratic primaries for governor heating up, there will be plenty more examples.  Elizabeth Warren is an obvious case.  She claims to have some Cherokee ancestry and listed her ethnic group as "American Indian" in a few cases where it has been advantageous for her to do so.  Although there is no direct evidence that she ever received affirmative action benefits for her heritage, no doubt there was some social cachet in it.  So I would give her a pass on her first condition -- the offense was not too serious.  Furthermore, Warren has not made her claim to Cherokee ancestry a defining quality in her political career, focusing mostly on race-neutral issues such as bank regulation.  So she meets the second condition as well.  But she has proven a similar disaster on the third condition -- not honestly facing up to why she made such claims and what the advantage might be.

All of which raises a few other points.  First of all, if the offense in question is extremely common, we are going to have to give more of a pass on it than if it is not.  This is not the same as saying that it was perfectly acceptable in those days, or that people didn't know better back them.  But if an offense is so common that making it disqualifying would seriously shrink the pool of candidates, we really should take off severity points (while still requiring the candidate to mend his or her ways, and to honestly own up to it).  Drunken frat boy behavior was rampant among elite colleges and students when Kavanaugh was in school, and making it disqualifying would seriously reduce the available pool of federal judges.  While one would expect anyone in the 1980's to know that black face and Klan robes are not funny, judging from the number of revelations coming out, blackface appears to have been extremely common at Virginia Military Institute (VMI, Virginia's most elite college).  Making it disqualifying would (apparently) strip Virginia of much of its leadership.  And every white person in Oklahoma claims a Cherokee princess somewhere in their family tree.  Forcing candidates in Oklahoma to forego this confection would turn the state over to carpetbaggers.

And that raises another point as well.  As the office becomes higher, the applicant pool becomes wider, and perhaps what is pardonable in a lower office becomes more serious in a higher office.  Federal judge-ships may have an inordinate number of  graduates from elite schools with a frat boy culture; Virginia politics may have an inordinate number of VMI graduates who wore blackface; and Oklahoma residents, politician or not, may see a Cherokee princess ancestor as part of the Oklahoma identity.  But Presidential elections can be more particular.  (Although it does seem a bit unfair to exclude Virginia or Oklahoma politicians from running for President).  A fine example here is Joe Biden.  Biden was forced to withdraw from the 1988 presidential primary when he was found to have plagiarized speeches.  Plagiarizing speeches was apparently seen as disqualifying from being President.  But it did not prevent him from serving another 20 years as a Senator from Delaware, or for eventually becoming Vice President.  It is unlikely to be an issue if Biden chooses to run this time because the scandal came out a long time ago and is seen as old news.

Finally, I would add that even quite a severe offense might be forgivable, but it will require a much greater display of contrition than a minor offense.  In 1963, George Wallace, governor of Alabama, employed a Klansman as his speech writer and personally stood in the schoolhouse doorway to keep black students out.  In 1982, he was elected to a fourth term on the strength of black voters.  This was very serious bad conduct, and anyone can suspect his contrition was more political opportunism than sincere.  But nonetheless, black voters forgave him.  While I would hate to offer George Wallace as a positive role model for anything, still, politicians might consider his example in the virtues of owning up to past vices.

____________________________________________
*Spare me any jokes about maybe this being a good thing.

Republicans and Executive Power

I have a hard time taking Republican claims that conservatives have always feared an overreaching executive seriously.  It requires airbrushing out about 40 years of our quite recent history, from 1968 to 2008. 

This is not to deny that Republicans feared executive overreach during the Roosevelt era, which one can extend from 1933 all the way up to the mid '60's.  Democrats controlled the presidency most of the time from 1933 to 1968, except for eight years of the liberal Republican Eisenhower.  This was the era of the imperial presidency when the power of the executive branch expanded to an extraordinary degree but the restraints and safeguards did not.  There were serious abuses of power, generally escalating.*  But the apogee of the imperial presidency was in the Republican, Richard Nixon.  It was under Nixon that the full scope of abuses came out, and a Democratic Congress began taking measure to reign in the abuses of the executive branch, over the resistance of Nixon and his Republican successors.  Granted, there was a measure of hypocrisy there.  The complaint that Democrats in Congress ignored the abuses until a Republican started committing them has some validity.  Nonetheless, the abuses were real and needed reigning in.

Furthermore, Nixon began an era of Republican dominance of the presidency, even as Democrats continued to control Congress.  From 1968 to 1992, Republicans held the presidency all but four year.  Furthermore, they won all all their elections by landslides, with the sole exception of 1968.  And the 1968 election was complicated by a third party candidacy of George Wallace.  Counting each vote for Wallace as a vote for Nixon, 1968 was a Republican landslide as well.  The Democrats' only victory during this time was by Jimmy Carter, in the wake of Watergate, against the only person ever to serve as both President and Vice President without being elected to either office.  It could be dismissed as an anomaly.  And Republicans during this time became increasingly champions of executive power.  It was during this time that the theory of the unitary executive began to become popular.  Antonin Scalia was a great champion of executive power.  William Barr, Donald Trump's new Attorney General, served as Attorney General under Bush I and was a strong champion of executive power.  Attempts to reign in the President were denounced on the right as the work of an "imperial Congress." 

The Clinton Presidency was a major shock to Republicans, who had assumed that there would never be a Democratic President again.  They managed to dismiss him as an illegitimate anomaly, the freak result of a third party candidate in Ross Perot.  And, as  such, Republicans continued to be champions of presidential power, especially the power to cut spending.  There was much talk, for instance of allowing the President a line item veto or other ways of reducing spending beyond what Congress authorized.

And this is to say nothing of the Bush II presidency, in which the theory of the "unitary executive" was effectively taken to mean that the President could do anything, including things expressly banned by Congress such as indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, and torture, so long as he said "national security" first.  David Addington and John Yoo became notorious for their championship of such ideas. 

Then, on January 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated, Republicans suddenly became greatly alarmed about an overreaching executive.  Even then, they could dismiss his election as an anomaly, the result of a deeply unpopular war and the worst economic crisis since 1929.  But with his reelection in 2012, it became clear that Democratic Presidents would happen quite regularly and the Republican freakout became epic.  People who applauded indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, and torture as executive prerogative even when forbidden by law started to see tweaking of regulations as monstrous acts of tyranny and refraining from deporting people illegally brought to the US as children as the end of America. 

Yeah, I know, the mommy party and the daddy party. Bush was claiming unlimited ability to exercise daddy powers, which are all find and good, while Obama was committing the monstrous tyranny of using mommy powers.  But honestly, the sight of Republicans going from championing unlimited executive power to suddenly proclaiming their fear of an out-of-control executive happened so suddenly it could almost give you whiplash.  And the sight of Republican proclaiming that they have "always" feared an out-of-control executive so soon after championing just that is positively disgusting.

__________________________________________
*It is not clear to me that Truman was worse than Roosevelt in that regard, or Eisenhower worse than Truman, but certainly Kennedy was worse than Eisenhower, Johnson worse than Kennedy, and Nixon worst of all.  

A Brief Note on the Trump Tax Bill

So, tax refunds are coming in and a lot of people are finding that under the new tax law their refunds have shrunk.  How many people?  And how do they compare to ones who have seen their refunds grow?  I have not seen any statistics on that so far, only anecdotes.

Any major reform will have losers as well as winners.  Such was the case with Obamacare, and it is the case with the Republican tax bill.  And invariably you will hear a lot more from losers than winners.  The number of losers under Obamacare was not great compared to the total population, but they made their anger known.  Republicans were quick to trumpet the loses under Obamacare to condemn the whole bill.  Now Republicans are getting a taste of their own medicine.  

Forgive me for finding it a gratifying sight.

One More Comment on Howard Schultz

Look, I know it's terribly unoriginal to comment that Howard Schultz sort of libertarianism lite is the general ideology of our ruling class, or that the reason it never catches on is that no one else shares it.

But I do think it should be added that our ruling class holds this ideology out of a sincere and honest conviction that it is what is best for the country and keeps trying to sell libertarianism lite in the belief it is really what is needed.

I don't think our ruling class are hardcore economic royalists, but they are lite economic royalists.  They accept the legitimacy of Social Security and Medicare, but believe that major cuts are necessary to preserve these programs.  They accept the income tax and at least some economic regulation, but generally believe that minimal constraints on profit-making are what best benefits the economy.  And they see social conservatism as simple bigotry.

Ruling classes everywhere have a remarkable skill for confusing their power and privilege for the common good.  When industrial capitalism rules, the ruling class convinces itself that whatever raises profits highest is in the common good.  Rising tide lifts all boats and so forth.  In a democracy, this requires going one step further and believing that the people must be with you because how could they be so benighted as to disagree.  (This is common to partisans all across the spectrum).

What gets comparatively little attention, because our ruling class regards it as outside all reasonable bounds, is the opposite ideology -- economically liberal but socially conservative.  A sizable share of our population fits into this category, but our ruling elite considers it to be completely out of bounds.  A significant part of Donald Trump's appeal was that he spoke to this ideology, although once in power he quickly turned out to be just another economic royalist.  (To point out that Trump is no true social conservative is like pointing out that his skin and hair are fake -- obvious to all but the most truly indoctrinated). 

The best description I have heard of this excluded combination is Christian Democrat.  Christian Democracy is a positive expression of the economic liberal/social conservative combination that respects democratic institutions and norms and the rule of law.  It may resist immigration as a threat to social cohesion without demonizing immigrants.  Confronted with a flood of refugees, Christian Democracy might reject as a false dichotomy the choice between indiscriminate admission and leaving them to their fate, seeking instead for creative third options.

One might even speculate that it was the lack of any political space for the Christian Democratic outlook in the U.S. that drove potential adherents to demagogues like Trump.  Although it is also true that the Christian Democrats are in decline all across Europe, with devastating effects on freedom and democracy.

Third parties in the United States are hopeless causes doomed to failure as such, but often useful in pushing the main parties in their direction.  Certainly there are those who speculate that Howard Schultz' proposed run is mostly an attempt to pressure Democrats in an economically conservative direction.  And what of a Christian Democratic third party?  Unlike a libertarian-lite third party, an economically liberal/socially conservative candidate would have real appeal to a significant portion of the population.  Might such a candidate push the Republicans away from their economic royalism and find humanitarian alternatives to the current deadlock on immigration?  Obviously such a candidate would not appeal to people who want to celebrate hatred as "authenticity."  But the authoritarians will always be with us.  We can only hope to keep them in check. 

On Howard Schultz

Nothing very original here, but since Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks thinks that his fortune qualifies him to be President, I might as well compare him to other business execs in the who have shared that belief.

Most obviously, Donald Trump.  Let there be no doubt, if the election were somehow to come down to a choice between Trump and Schultz, the choice would be a total no-brainer.  Schultz is incomparably better than Trump in a whole lot of ways:

• Schultz is an actual, legitimate, competent, successful, self-made businessman, while Trump's business career has been fraudulent at best and outright gangsterism at worst.*
• Schultz has, so far as we can tell, a normal ability and willingness to learn.
• Schultz has, so far as we can tell, normal impulse control, a normal attention span, a concept of objective reality, etc.
• Schultz is, to all appearances, motivated by a sincere concern for the public good.
• Schultz does not scapegoat immigrants or celebrate hate as "authenticity."
• I am not worried about Schultz running the country for the benefit of Starbucks Coffee.  I don't even see how such a thing would be possible.**
• He might very well be willing to sell his interest in Starbucks and put his assets in blind trust.
• Schultz shows no signs of vindictiveness or a belief that the federal government should be a tool for punishing enemies.
• Schultz does not appear to think that the federal government would be his private property if he wins, or that he would be an elective dictator.
• I am not worried about Schultz creating a crisis out of personal pique.
• Schultz has no sinister ties with a foreign country.

So all of this is clear advantage to Schultz over Trump.  But Schultz shares a major shortcoming with Trump.  He knows nothing at all about how government, politics, and policy work.  And he sees this ignorance, not as a shortcoming to be overcome, but as a virtue to be touted.  In this he is, like so many billionaires running for president, a classic politiphobe.

[Politiphobes] see the contentious give-and-take of politics as unnecessary and distasteful. Specifically, they believe that obvious, commonsense solutions to the country’s problems are out there for the plucking. The reason these obvious solutions are not enacted is that politicians are corrupt, or self-interested, or addicted to unnecessary partisan feuding. . . . [T]hey do not acknowledge that meaningful policy disagreement even exists. From that premise, they conclude that all the arguing and partisanship and horse-trading that go on in American politics are entirely unnecessary. Politicians could easily solve all our problems if they would only set aside their craven personal agendas.

And, given that real, deep-seated policy differences do exist, and that policy making is a complex set of tradeoffs, politiphobes tend to respond to discovering what policy and politics are really like by either becoming increasingly authoritarian or shutting down altogether.

Comparing Schultz to other CEO candidates, I would prefer him to Ross Perot in that he shows none of Perot's authoritarianism or paranoia.  But I would rank him well behind Mitt Romney or any other businessman with actual experience in government.  Schultz might more accurately be compared to Herman Caine -- a legitimate and competent businessman, but utterly clueless about how government and policy making actually work.  

And finally, Schultz has one obvious disadvantage compared to Trump, Perot or Caine (though perhaps not Romney).  Whatever else one may think of Trump, Perot, or Caine, they were at least colorful and charismatic, able to inspire followers.  Schultz is about as colorful and charismatic as a mashed potato sandwich.***

___________________________________________________

*I realize that plenty of people either think gourmet coffee is a scam or else take gourmet coffee seriously but think Starbucks is merely overpriced imitation gourmet coffee.  But that is mere puffery and in no way comparable to routinely stiffing subcontractors, banks, immigrant laborers, and anyone else who does business with you, let alone laundering money for the Russian Mob.

**Starbucks, overpriced though it may be, is still a retailer and, as such, operates on a low-price-high-volume model.  Anyone wanting to engage in corrupt dealings would have to buy a helluva lot of Starbucks coffee to have any real impact.  A President Schultz might set policy with an unusual consciousness of the needs of the retail industry or the food service industry, but that is not corrupt in the same way as running the country for the good of one particular company.

***Nothing against mashed potatoes, you understand.  I love potatoes in all forms.  I don't think I have ever met a potato I didn't like.  But neither have I ever met a potato I would vote for as President.