A Radical Reform that Stands No Chance of Passing Continued: The Treasurer

 

My last post discussed the possibility of separating the offices of President and Attorney General.  Now on to the Treasurer.

The Treasurer:  The current US Treasury Department collects taxes, pays government expenses, manages government accounts, supervises banks, enforces tax law, and issues and enforces financial regulations.   

In many ways, the federal government's real source of power is not law enforcement, but money.  Law enforcement in the US is extremely diffuse, most of it under city or county control with no central command.  Non-federal law enforcement is not allowed to interfere with the feds, but neither is it required to act on their behalf.  Rather, state and local law enforcement step aside and do nothing with respect to federal law.  In that case, the big restriction on federal law enforcement would be the lack of personnel.  That is why all elections matter.  And selective attempts to criminalize the opposition with bogus prosecutions would be constrained by an independent judiciary and trial by jury.  

But the federal budget is immense.  Most of the federal budget takes the form of payments to individuals or organizations, whether through transfers, contracts, loans, grants, or the like.  Countless individuals, non-profits, local governments, etc. rely on federal funding and would be devastated if it were withdrawn.  This was what Elon Musk attempted to do.  It continues, albeit on a less dramatic scale and in a less flamboyant manner.

I would essentially limit the Treasurer to collecting and disbursing money.  Issuance and adjudication of financial regulations would remain with the President, and enforcement of financial regulations would rest with the Attorney General.  The Treasurer would continue to be in charge of tax collection.  After all, the Treasurer can't disburse funds without first collecting them.  So, the Treasure would not only collect taxes but would continue to do tax audits and simple civil tax collections, and to determine which organizations are entitled to tax-exempt status, with all existing restrictions intended to prevent abuse still in place.  As for criminal cases, the existing system would continue.  The Treasurer would investigate tax crimes, and the Attorney General would prosecute them.  

But the real change would be in the disbursement of funds.  The purpose of separating the Treasurer from the larger executive would be the same as separating the Attorney General.  Just as a separate Attorney General is intended to limit lawless prosecutions, a separate Treasurer is intended to prevent lawless withholding of federal money.

Congress determines the general rules of how federal funds are to be spent, but executive agencies have significant discretion within the limits of their budgets.  Individuals or organizations seeking federal contracts, grants, loans, reimbursements, etc. apply, not to the Treasury, but to the specific federal agency and the agency, not the Treasury, makes the payment.  Under the Impoundment Control Act, if the President does not want to spend money appropriated by Congress, he must notify Congress.  The money will be held for 45 days.  At the end of that time, the funds must be released unless Congress rescinds payment.  Enforcement is by the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  However, Trump has thwarted such action by not appointing a Comptroller General.  (The holdover is not clear whether she has authority to bring suit).

Then there is the matter of the use of federal funds as a means of coercion.  Federal funds are, quite properly, conditional on various terms.  The ability to claim that conditions have not been met and withhold funds is an immense source of leverage.  The best-known recent example involves Trump's showdown with universities.  It is clear that during the Gaza protests, many universities allowed the protesters to engage in behavior that was inappropriate at best and illegal at worst.  Recipients of federal money may not engage in racial or ethnic discrimination.  Universities were allowing protesters to engage in such discrimination against Jews.  Withholding federal money might be appropriate, but subject to strict conditions. Termination of funds requires "an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure to comply with such requirement."  Furthermore:

[S]uch termination or refusal shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other recipient as to whom such a finding has been made and, shall be limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found.

Notice must be given to the recipient; it must be determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means.  A report must be filed with relevant Congressional committees, and withholding cannot take place until 30 days after the report is filed.  Needless to say, the Trump Administration has ignored all of these requirements.  And there have been other withholdings of funds as a means of political retaliation or coercion.  And there have been all manner of bizarre rules and regulations attached to grants that are cutting off funding from uncontroversial programs, such and cancer and Alzheimer's research.  Trump has also engaged in grossly inappropriate fund shifting to circumvent attempts to limit his activities.

What can be done about all of this?

I would do much the same with federal money as I proposed with federal law enforcement.  Just as an independently elected Attorney General would hold separate the enforcement of laws and regulations from issuance and adjudication of regulations, an independently elected Treasurer would separate spending decisions from disbursement of money. Congress would appropriate funds.  Executive agencies under the office of the President would make decisions about who should receive grants, contracts, etc. in accordance with the President's policy preferences.  The Treasury would actually disburse the funds.  

If the President wished not to spend funds appropriated by Congress, he would give the suitable notice to Congress and the Treasurer.  Congress would have 45 days to pass a rescission, or the Treasurer would disburse.  If a federal agency under the control of the President wishes to disburse money in the form of a grant, contract, loan, etc., it would notify the Treasurer, and the Treasurer would make payment.  Most of the time this would be routine.  

If an executive agency believes there is a good reason to deny a payment (such as fraud) or a good reason to cut off an ongoing grant or contract (see the university situation, for instance), it would notify the Treasurer and give the justification.  The recipient could then challenge the withholding.  The Treasurer would have an administrative adjudicator to decide whether the withholding was legally justified and disburse if it finds the withholding is not justified, presumably with appeal to the courts.  If the executive agency attempts to bypass this arrangement by simply not notifying the Treasury of the payment to be made, the recipient could make a claim with the Treasury and go through the same process.  

If any executive agency seeks funds for an unauthorized purpose, the Treasurer could withhold the funds and the agency could challenge the withholding in court.  (Not with an administrative adjudicator because the Treasurer would be a party).  I understand that federal agencies have to have some degree of flexibility in the use of funds and some ability to move them around, which would be thwarted if they have to go to the Treasurer for every expenditure, no matter how minor. Without claiming and special knowledge on the subject, if other agencies can have limited enforcement power, while leaving criminal prosecutions and large-scale civil actions to the Attorney General, it should also be possible to allow executive agencies to internally transfer funds up to a certain amount (I have no idea how much) and have to go to the Treasurer for larger amounts.  Attempts to evade the limit by a large number of smaller transfers could be prosecuted as structuring.  (Remember, the President would not be allowed to pardon members of the executive branch.

These rules would apply to someone who has the legal right to receive federal funds (under an existing grant contract, payroll, entitlement benefit, etc).  Undoubtedly the executive will have significant discretion in issuing new grants, contracts, and the like.  The current Administration has made some insane rules, such as having a computer scan all applications and eliminate any that contain "woke" words.  I don't claim to know how much of this is illegal and how much is merely bad policy.  The Treasurer could only withhold or be compelled to disburse funds in case of actual illegality.  Having bad policies is part of the President's prerogative and the proper remedy is at the ballot box.

Admittedly, all of this makes the Treasurer's role look mostly ministerial.  The Treasurer's policy-making authority would be quite limited and mostly adjudicatory, i.e., deciding whether requests for funding or denials of funding are legal and complying or not complying accordingly.  I do think that all of these things could probably be achieved by internal and statutory reforms to increase the independence of the Treasury Department.  But given the disposition of MAGA types these days, they would probably dismiss any sort of Treasury independence as machinations of the Deep State.  Making the Treasurer elective is a protection against such accusations.

A Radical Reform that Stands Zero Chance of Passing, that I Nonetheless Put Out There for Your Consideration: The President and Attorney General

 

Again, being optimistic and assuming Democrats can resume power some time, what sort of reforms should they institute?  Later on I hope to discuss statutory reforms that Democrats could pass, although they would probably have to eliminate the filibuster to do.  And I will talk about constitutional amendments that I would favor, even though they have no chance of passing.

But here I want to propose a radical reform that stands zero chance of passing, but that I want to offer as a thought experiment.  

There is simply no disputing that the executive has grown far beyond what anyone in the 18th Century could have imagined and has become dangerous.  And yes, I get it that libertarian-style right-wingers would say that we should shrink the executive and bring it back in line with what the Founders wanted.  But restoring an 18th Century executive in this day and age is simply not practical. No country anywhere in the world has an 18th Century-sized executive, nor do the people of any country, our own included, want such a thing.

Parliamentary systems handle the danger by wholly subordinating the executive to the legislature.  And there has been talk of moving in the direction of a more parliamentary system, for instance, by allowing multi-representative districts in hopes of reducing polarization.

But parliamentary systems are foreign to the American experience and unlikely to be appealing for that reason.  No state anywhere in the US has a parliamentary system.  And honestly, after watching the House of Representatives deadlock on choosing a Speaker and acting like a parliament (i.e., being able to remove its leader by simple majority vote and not having clear rules on who takes his place), I can see why.

So let me propose an all-American system, practiced in many US states but not (so far as I know) in any other country.  After all, if there is one thing Americans love, it is multiplying elective offices.  So, if so many of our problems are caused by the "unitary executive," and if a parliamentary system is unappealing and un-American, why not do what US states do and eliminate the unitary executive.  Have multiple elective executive officials instead.

Consider the executive officials who are elective in state government:

It seems no exaggeration to say that most Cabinet-style posts are independently elective in at least some states.  I don't think we need anything like that at the federal level. The trouble with having too many elective offices is that they become mind-numbing and keeping up with all of them is more work than even the most hardcore political junkie would care to do.  We don't want that to happen at the federal level.  At the same time, giving a single officer authority over the entire executive branch is clearly not safe.  

It seems to me that the most dangerous powers of the Federal Government, aside from the military, of course, are law enforcement, money, and administration (see Elon Musk).  So, I propose four federal elective executive officials -- the President, the Attorney General, the Treasurer, and the Auditor.  The Attorney General would be in charge of law enforcement.  The Treasurer would collect taxes and disburse funds.  And the Auditor would be a sort of supreme Inspector General, inspecting the entire federal government for fraud waste and abuse and taking actions to curb it.

The President:  So, what would that leave to the President?  Well, first and foremost, the President would still be commander-in-chief of the armed forces and would be in charge of all military and foreign policy matters (with strict constraints on deploying the military domestically).  He would continue to be the sole executive official with the veto power or the power of pardon, subject to the restriction that he could not pardon executive officials.  The President would also continue to nominate federal judges and to preside over all executive departments not spun off into one of the other three elective departments, i.e., the "service ministries," most economic policy, and most regulatory bodies.  (More on that later).  And the President would make executive appointments to all executive agencies remaining under the control of the Presidency. The Attorney General, Treasurer, and Auditor would appoint their own subordinates, also subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

Attorney General:  The Attorney General would be our chief law enforcement officer and would be elected separately from the President.  All federal police, prosecutions, and civil enforcement would fall under the control of the Attorney General.  In the matter of immigration, the President would continue to be responsible for border security because of the close associate between the border and international relations, but the Attorney General would handle internal removal.  Drug dealing, terrorism, spies, large-scale fraud, public corruption, and all the usual federal crimes would be handled by the Attorney General, along with civil enforcement actions.  

The President would continue to control the National Guard.  He would only be able to deploy the National Guard to enforce state law or uphold state authority only upon the request of the governor.  He would only be able to deploy the National Guard to enforce federal law or uphold federal authority only upon the request of the Attorney General.  The President would not be required to deploy the National Guard in such instances; refusal would always be an option.  And the law would define the conditions sufficient to justify use of the National Guard in some detail.  Use of the Army for domestic enforcement would be forbidden except in cases of invasion or civil war.

The Attorney General would also take over general regulatory enforcement but would not have the power of issuing regulations or deciding regulatory actions.  We all know the rule about separation of powers -- executive, legislative, and judicial powers must be exercised independently or freedom is lost.  Such was the theory when this country was founded.  We have since learned, through the existence of parliamentary systems, that freedom can survive the complete subordination of executive power to the legislature.  See above.

Furthermore, we follow the English system of common law that makes judicial precedent binding law.  In other words, our courts routinely exercise legislative functions but can be overruled by the legislature.  The same sometimes happens with regulatory agencies.  Some regulations are formally adopted under the Administrative Procedures Act, with publication in the Federal Register, public comments, and adoption of a specific written regulation.  But some are adopted by common law, i.e, by precedents set in administrative courts by Administrative Law Judges based on cases litigated before them.  Legislative and judicial functions are not so separate after all.

It therefore seems to me that the most important separation of powers is the separation of executive and judicial powers -- the authority bringing a case cannot be the one who decides it!

Our regulatory agencies are often criticized for violating the separation of powers. One and the same body issues regulations, takes regulatory actions, and decides whether there has been a regulatory violation, albeit with the right of appeal to the courts.  While these functions may be carried out by different branches of the same agency, all are answerable to the same leadership.  Our situation in immigration is a shocking example.  Enforcement is part of the Department of Homeland Security, while immigration judges are part of the Department of Justice and subject to the command of the Attorney General.  Donald Trump gives orders to both immigration enforcement agents and immigration judges and has been firing judges who displease him.  I am open to persuasion both ways as to whether we need to move administrative judges to the judicial branch in specialty courts, or whether stronger protections from firing are sufficient.  Either way, the Attorney General should be limited to bringing enforcement actions and should have no role in either making regulations or deciding cases.  And the President and regulatory agencies under the President's command should not undertake enforcement actions.

An obvious problem presents itself.  Must all regulatory enforcers be with the Attorney General?  Must every health inspector, say, work for the Attorney General?  And what of the special areas of expertise that regulatory enforcers are supposed to have?  I am open to persuasion on this one.  There are 46 states with independent Attorney General that we can use for guidance.  In general, though, I would propose that regulatory agencies have continue to have inspectors and the like who investigate, prepare reports, and can issue citations and civil fines up to a certain amount, but criminal or larger civil penalties would be the responsibility of the Attorney General, with regulatory inspectors acting witnesses.

This arrangement would admittedly have the disadvantage of preventing the removal of a rogue Attorney General except by impeachment.  But it would also be a safeguard against improper political influence.  

To be continued.

Another Trip to Fantasy Land

Trump's recent behavior, particularly with regard to the war in Iran, siding with Russia over Ukraine, and escalation in ICE is most alarming.  Worse still, even if Democrats win the midterms by a landslide and successfully take office, it is not clear to me what they can do to stop him.  The President is largely unconstrained in foreign policy, and ICE has a large enough war chest to keep going for years.  

I don't see how anything short of impeachment can stop him.  Nor do I see any prospect that Republicans would vote for removal, at least in sufficient numbers to convict.  And even if we manage to remove him, JD Vance is next in line and would be, if anything, even more hardcore on immigration and siding with Russia over Ukraine than Trump.  (He might get out of Iran, though).  

Still, let me indulge another fantasy.  Imagine that before the election, or at least before the next Congress is inaugurated, something comes out that is so explosive that no one (even the people who might stage a coup on behalf of Trump) can defend it.  Democrats win by a sweeping landslide, and there is little doubt that they can actually impeach and remove.  We will have to implicate Vance in this as well as Trump.  Speaker Mike Johnson comes forward and warns Trump and Vance that they have a choice -- step down now and let Johnson take over, or be impeached under the Democrats and let Hakeem Jeffries take over.  Assuming that Trump and Vance are not public-spirited enough to care (a plausible assumption), Johnson offers a sweetener.  He will pardon Trump, Vance, and anyone else they want pardoned.  Jeffries is unlikely to do the same.  Trump and Vance step aside (either by resignation or allowing impeachment to go through).  

Johnson becomes President.  What would I expect of him.

Well, it is my longstanding rule that I prefer an unprincipled opportunist to a dogmatic ideologue because the opportunist can be expected to back down from the worst policies if it is in his interest.  I am not sure which category JD Vance belongs to, but I am quite certain Johnson is an opportunist.

As such, I would expect him to back away from Trump's pro-Russia policies because they are unpopular.  I would expect him to somewhat soften Trump's deportation policies at least to what the Department of Homeland Security prefers(!).  And I would expect him to stop openly antagonizing allies, drop Trump's baseless prosecution against enemies, tiptoe away from Trump's vanity project and behave like a normal person.  All distinct positives!

I would not expect a President Johnson to walk away from the war with Iran.  And I would certainly expect him to follow the usual Republican program of cutting taxes in the top brackets, undermining social spending, rejecting economic and environmental regulations, preferring fossil fuels to alternative energy, wrecking government programs through corruption and incompetence, backing the police unless they target in-groups, distrusting allegations of racism, and playing up culture war issues.  The usual stuff, except for the war in Iran, -- bad but not deadly.  He would probably also support government's expanding surveillance powers, which really is dangerous.  I have no idea what he would do about tariffs or inflation.  And I would expect him not to have anything close to Trump's egregious corruption, but to turn a blind eye on corrupt practices by subordinates.  I would expect Johnson to be much less cooperative with Democrats investigating Trump's abuses than a President Jeffries, not as uncooperative as Trump.  And I would expect him to veto Democratic legislation intended to curb future abuses.

In short, I would expect a President Johnson to be a fairly standard Republican.

While I think that most members of Team Trump are unprincipled opportunists who could settle down they considered it in their interest, there are four who I consider to be dogmatic ideologues and extremely dangerous -- Pete Hegseth, Stephen Miller, Russ Vought, and RFK, Jr.  My advice to a hypothetical President Jeffries would be to fire these four, even if you lack the political capital to fire anyone else.  I would expect a President Johnson to fire Pete Hegseth, who botched a war, and RFK, Jr., who is a threat to public health.  I would expect him to keep Stephen Miller.  He might try to reign Miller in a little, but Johnson is basically a weak man an easily dominated, so I do not think the attempt would go well.  And I would expect him to keep Vought on because he agrees with Vought's anti-spending policies.  Most Republicans do.

I suppose I should also give some though to a President Vance.  This is a realistic possibility, since it is certainly possible that Trump might die or become incapacitated before the end of his term. But some thoughts are too depressing to face.

A More Disturbing Thought: What are the Signs Trump is Consolidating Power

On the other hand, I think we may have to face facts.  Trump's power may not diminish. Instead, he may successfully consolidate power.  There are at least some signs of that as well.

The National Park Service has defied a court order by cutting down hundreds of trees to build a golf course.  Not the sort of defiance that allows for plausible, or even implausible, deniability.  Some people have suggested that this shows where his true priorities lie.  Another alternative -- he is starting out small and moving to more serious types of defiance.

ICE arrests and abuses are escalating.

He is openly assisting Russia against Ukraine (while still trying to maintain plausible deniability).  He is now openly defying a law passed by Congress placing sanctions on Russia.

He is running campaign ads paid by public money -- also illegal.

His ballroom sounds a lot like a defensive bunker where he would hunker down to resist removal from office.  He is working on other fortifications around Washington that also look suspicious.

All of these things are broadly unpopular, in defiance of Rule Number One of Smart Authoritarians -- save the unpopular stuff until after you have consolidated power.  Maybe Trump thinks he has consolidated power enough to consistently defy public opinion.

And, perhaps worst of all, I am not sure how to stop any of these, even if Democrats take control of Congress.

So, what are possible signs that Trump is consolidating power:

• He openly defies District Court orders.
• He openly defies laws passed by Congress.
• He becomes increasingly brazen in targeting political opponents.
• Escalating government spying on citizens.
• ICE is increasingly used to surveil and harass US citizens.

I would say that all of these are coming about.  Other things to look for:

• He openly defies the Supreme Court.
• He imprisons opponents (or others) without charges
• He openly uses ICE as a secret police against citizens
• He deploys the military against US citizens
• He successfully overturns the upcoming elections
• Opponents start falling out of windows
• He dissolves Congress, perhaps at gunpoint.  I admit this last seems unlikely, but we are talking about a parade of horribles here.

I am not saying that these things (especially the second list) will happen.  But be on the lookout for them, and be alarmed if any happen.

Another, Obvious Sign that Trump's Power May Be Waning

 

Of course.  How could I miss something so obvious?

We are seeing another sign that Trump's power may be waning.  Members of his inner circle are openly feuding, knives out for each other, and leaking like a sieve.  There is starting to be serious turnover (at least of women).  All of this looks very much like the turmoil and upheaval of his first administration.  That turmoil and upheaval was a sign that he did not have a firm grip on power.  

This just might be a sign that he is losing his grip.

Checking Up on Signs that Trump's Power May be Waning

 

So, with the midterm elections merely weeks away, let me check up on my signs that Trump's power may be waning.

1. Media outlets bought by Trump allies are willing to criticize or oppose him:  No real change from CBS is a mixed bag.  60 Minutes seems to be tamed, but CBS has done a stunning expose of the damage to US bases in the Iran war.
2. State Republicans defy Trump.  Cheers to Indiana Republicans for standing up to Trump and not gerrymandering.  What a shame it cost them the primaries.  But as Trump's popularity sinks, more and more Republicans are running from him.
3. Republicans in Congress splinter and Trump cannot bring them into line: Johnson has sent the House into recess to keep it from voting.
4. Attempts to target opposing organizations through taxes or RICO are thrown out, or never materialize:  Some very disturbing developments.
5. Universities, high power law firms, and other institutions targeted by Trump start consistently defying him:  Not sure.
6. The Supreme Court makes a meaningful attempt to reign Trump in: A mixed bag.
7. Democrats win control of the House and Trump cannot stop them:  Stay tuned.
8. Democrats win control of the Senate and Trump cannot stop them: Stay tuned.
9. Growing numbers of state and local jurisdictions reject cooperation with ICE, putting more strain on the organization:  Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger has withdrawn the State Police from ICE cooperation.  The Virginia Legislature has passed legislation limiting local cooperation.  Not much, but at least a little.  It is why I am so closely watching elections for governor in Florida and Texas.  I realized the legislatures of those two states are out of reach, but Governors can at least stop the State Police from working with ICE.  And in Florida, the Governor could stop removing local officials for not working with ICE.
10. ICE starts losing personnel faster than it can recruit them and begins shrinking: No.  ICE is ramping up operations again.
11. Big money interests start standing up to him:  To some degree, I think.
12. Trump supporters stop making death threats and harassment against people who he criticizes:  Ain't gonna happen.

Obviously, we are mostly waiting on numbers 7 and 8, which will make a huge difference.  I am also starting to think that maybe we should start looking instead at which institutions are most likely to defy Trump. As we ascend up the ladder, it will show which ones will be the last to turn against Trump if his power diminishes -- and which will be first and last to fall in line if he consolidates power.

1. Federal trial and appellate judges (With us!  Yay!)
2. Small, local organizations that can fly under the federal radar screen (a mixed bag, obviously, but able to defy Trump if they want to).
3. Media outlets (Yes, they still tend to "both sides" things, but Trump hates the media so much for a reason)
4. Large organizations like universities or law firms (?)
5. Republicans outside of Congress (quite heroic in 2020, being taken over by election deniers, but also starting to distance themselves from Trump).
6. Big money interests (?)
7. The Supreme Court (A few attempts to reign Trump in, but mostly in his pocket)
8. Republicans in Congress (Cowards!)
9. The Deep State, i.e., federal bureaucracy, aside from ICE and Border Patrol (under his control so in a difficult spot)
10. ICE and Border Patrol (won't defy him; we can only hope they fade away)
11. The digital mob (hopeless)

Sometimes the Most Aggressive Approach is Not the Most Effective (Domestic Politics Version)

 

That being said, let us be optimistic.  Let us assume that Democrats do win control of both houses of Congress, and that Trump fails to block them.  Then what?

My answer would be, instead of taking the most combative and intransigent position, take the smartest.  Understand that the most aggressive approach is not necessarily the most effective.  

We actually saw that illustrated quite well in the showdown over funding for ICE and Border Patrol.  Due to the insane way our budgetary rules are written, the Senate must have a 60-vote super-majority to pass an annual budget, but can pass a multi-year commitment to spending by a simple majority.  The One Bollixed Bonkers Bonanza had already allocated a $75 million dollar multi-year commitment of funding to ICE when its annual budget was previously only $10 million.  Democrats dug in their heels and demanded serious reforms as a precondition to any funding in the annual budget.  Republicans offered a requirement to use body cameras and training in de-escalation, both of which were in the law anyhow.  The standoff reached an unbreakable impasse, with neither side willing to yield, so Republicans circumvented the Democrats and passed a multi-year commitment of funds to take ICE and Border Patrol funding out of the annual budget altogether.  

So, sure, Democrats get bragging rights about never having yielded, but only at the cost of giving up any actual power.  In the clear light of hindsight, it would have been smarter for the Democrats to have agreed to one year of funding in return for requiring body cameras and de-escalation training. Would these restraints have been adequate?  Absolutely not!  Would the base have been outraged at the cave?  Almost certainly.  But if the Democrats had accepted these inadequate restraints, then assuming they were to win even the House of Representatives, they would be in a position to drive a hard bargain next year.  In return for annual funding, Democrats could demand real reforms such as:

• An end to quotas (admittedly hard to enforce)
• Keeping Border Patrol on the border
• Mandating a judicial warrant to enter a private space
• Protecting the independence of immigration judges
• Mandating bond for anyone with no criminal record and strong ties to the community
• Individual civil liability

In the end, Team Trump might have decided that it would rather forgo annual funding than agree to these terms, but even then the budget would have been smaller than it is now, giving ICE and Border Patrol less resources to do their damage.

Similar principles will apply assuming Democrats are able to control Congress and especially the Senate next year.

I think Democrats do understand this at least where impeachment is concerned, having learned it the hard way.  Donald Trump now has the dubious distinction of being the first President ever to be impeached twice.  But removal takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and it should be clear by now that Donald Trump could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and still not get the two-thirds vote to convict.  If the Senate would not convict him for inciting a riot that put their own lives in danger, what hope is there!  Instead, Democrats are making the smarter plan to investigate and expose.  If something comes up so outrageous that public opinion even among the MAGA faithful calls for impeachment, so be it.  But it seems saftest to assume that it will not.

There are also calls if Democrats take the Senate for them to reject all Trump nominees, whether executive or judicial.  I whole-heartedly agree on the judicial nominees.  Yes, I know, many conservative judges are outraged by Trump's behavior and seeking to reign him in.  But unless you are convinced that a nominee is a mainstream conservative who will do that (which seems most unlikely), reject Trump nominees.  Assuming you are exposing outrages by the Trump Administration in your hearing, explain to the American people that you will not approve any judge who would defend these outrages.

But executive nominees are a different matter, and for two reasons.  First, if you refuse to confirm a judge, the judicial post will remain vacant.  No temporary Trump-approved substitute will step in.  If you refuse to confirm an executive nominee, the President has considerable power to substitute and "acting" official instead.  Second, by making clear that you will never approve an executive nominee no matter what, you remove all incentive to fire a bad official.  What if the point if Trump knows he will not be able to appoint a replacement?

Alarming stories

Things are coming down to the wire.  Signs point to a blue wave.  Thus far there have been no open disruptions of the voting process.  But there are also some very alarming undercurrents.  The cover picture here is an obvious one -- National Guard troops were photographs standing around a ballot drop box in Washington, DC.  There have been other disturbing developments as well.

Federal investigation of the 2020 election continues in Fulton County, Georgia, with investigators even seeking contact information for ALL election officials and poll volunteers.  The judge denied the request, but there is no way to interpret this other than an attempt ant intimidation -- and certainly not the last.

Brendan Carr's FCC has attacked the licenses of broadcasting stations that run stories Trump objections to.  Since it is stations, not networks, that are licensed, Carr has ordered all eight ABC-owned stations to apply for license renewal ahead of the usual date -- a thing that has not happened in 50 years.  And he has given the stations 30 days to prepare applications -- a thing that usually takes months.  It is harassing the stations with pretextual investigations of equal employment law as a way of creating pressure to modify content.*

In New York, ICE officers showed up at a polling place to confront an election worker over a social media post that named an ICE officer.  The officers were from ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility, whose primary mission is investigating allegations of misconduct by ICE personnel and contractors.  Admittedly, no voters were present when the encounter took place.  The poll worker even appears to have chosen the location in the belief that she would be safer if it took place in a public area.  But this was, nonetheless, a meeting with intimidating figures in an election place during an election (the primary).

California is, thus far, the only place where Trump has called an election fraudulent during this election cycle.  Part of this is no doubt because California takes so long to count ballots, which really is a problem.  But I do not believe it is too much to suspect that another reason is California's open primary system, which makes it one of the few places where Democrats and Republicans have actually run against each other in this cycle.  Nor has Trump's hostility to California elections been limited to words.  Some 20 FBI agents have been harassing homeless people in Los Angeles with accusations that they were bribed to vote in the primary.  The fact that the Republican candidate lost out to the Democratic incumbent and a DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) challenger was no doubt a factor in the decision.

But the most alarming development has been in Ohio, where FBI agents raided a voting rights group and seized its financial records and communications equipment.  Hundreds of members have been stopped by the FBI for "interviews" that sound very much like harassment.  The same story reports that election-related prosecutions have increased by 40% since 2022.  Even in Wyoming -- Wyoming! -- there have been complaints about aggressive and harassing behavior by federal investigation observers.

Donald Trump has made clear that he not only opposes voting by mail, he opposes early voting and wants all voting to take place on a single election day.  He has not addressed the issue, perhaps because doesn't know about it, but it seems probable that he would also like to go back to the days when everyone voted in their own precinct and no other alternative was available.  Part of this is no doubt simply an old man complaining that things have changed since he was young.  But I am inclined to think there is a method to Trump's madness.

Consider:  If all voting takes place on one day, with everyone going to an assigned precinct, it would be a simple matter to send ICE to specific strategic precincts to disrupt voting.  Even allowing people to vote in any precinct disrupts such attempts -- it allows people to leave a precinct with intimidating officers and vote somewhere else.  Allowing voting to be spread out over a longer period of time makes it even easier to evade intimidation and harder for the feds to be everywhere at all times.  (Of course, when no one knows where they will show up, the fear remains).  Ballot drop boxes give people time to think through their voting at home and mark their ballots, but the offer easy sites for intimidation.  (See above).  But if everyone can fill out their ballots at home and drop them in the mail, harassment and intimidation become impossible.  

No wonder Trump hates mail-in voting so much!

_____________________________________________
*This very much matches with my worst fears.  Abuse of the criminal justice system would be limited by an independent judiciary and trial by jury.  But regulatory actions are much less protected.  I feared abuse of the regulatory process as a means of harassing enemies.

Democrats Re-Learn the Lessons of 2018

 

We are seeing comparisons to the 2018 elections here (the last midterm when Donald Trump was President).  Most people who say that mean that Trump was unpopular, Democrats were ahead in the generic ballot, and Democrats did, indeed, make sizeable gains.  I agree with all that, but it seems to me that another highly salient fact of the 2018 election is coming to light.  Namely, the Democrats are again showing that, in a midterm election, you can beat message discipline with message indiscipline.   

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that the approach would work in a Presidential year.  In a Presidential year, all eyes are fixed on the top slot, and everyone else has no real choice but to fall in line.  An off-year election is a different matter.  In 2018, the Republican were all singing on the same tune on cue, while the Democrats were belting out a glorious cacophony.  While Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was leading the Squad into Washington and heading off in a leftwing direct, other district were running former military and intelligence officers with strong national security backgrounds.  All were campaigning on different, often locally-focused platforms.  And the Republicans, all singing on key, couldn't counter all those different messages at once.

And here we are again. The DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) are denouncing Israel and calling for Medicare for All.  Jon Ossoff is firing up crowds vowing to fight corruption.  James Talarico is hewing center and talking about his faith.  Mary Peltola is running a pro-oil, pro-fisheries campaign in Alaska.  Run For Something is building the bench.  And, of course, it makes a difference that the US has a lot of elected offices.  Democrats have hard-fought, sometimes bitter, primaries, but all line up behind the winner in the end.  

Against this, the Republicans are almost absurdly on-message.  They all cry Communism, but no one believes them.  When an assassin attempts to kill Trump, they all fall in line saying this proves the need for his ballroom.  When Ossoff mentions Natalie Harp, they all freak out at once.  It is impossible not to believe that they are taking directions from the top down.  

And I have noticed that in 2026, Republicans seem to be repeating a mistake the Democrats made in 2024.  In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and held that abortion was not a constitutional right.  This decision proved highly unpopular, and Democrats rode it to a semi-victory in 2022 -- used the threat to abortion rights to thwart the predicted Red Wave.  They tried it again in 2024 and found that abortion is enough to win one election, but too narrow for a lasting majority.  Republicans are repeating the mistake.  In the 2024 Presidential debate, Donald Trump said that Harris, “wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison.”  Politifact rated it as "mostly true."  It also proved to be a winning message that checked people's boxes about all the worst traits associated with Democrats.  Transgender athletes also proved to be a winning message. Given the recent burst of inflation and crime, and the state of the border, it seems unlikely that this was the primary reason that Trump won, but it did prove to be one of his most successful campaign ads.

Well, Republicans are learning that the same thing applies to transgender issues as to abortion.  It is simply too narrow an issue to build a lasting majority.  Social issues are legitimately important.  They tell us about people's underlying values and what sort of society they favor.  But any one social issue is apt to look more like niche issue and not enough for a broad-based coalition.  To build a broad-based coalition, you must convince voters that the other party just doesn't share your values.  And that means they don't share your values across a wide range of issues.  Republicans have done it for a long time and with great success against Democrats.  And now Democrats just might have the constellation of issues -- corruption, undue influence for tech billionaires, data centers, pervasive surveillance, etc. -- to show the Republicans don't share most people's values either.

But above all, convincing voters that the other side doesn't share your values means acknowledging that not all Americans have exactly the same values, and that you are willing to build a big tent to let in a wide range of outlook.  And it means portraying the other side as narrow-minded dogmatic, and judgmental.  In short, it means allowing for a certain degree of message indiscipline -- and exposing the dangers of too much message discipline by the other side.

A Trip to Fantasy Land

Hakeem Jeffires 

Let's start with some basics.  Assume Democrats win by a landslide in November and Team Trump fails to prevent them from coming to power.  There is no way they will be able to impeach and remove Trump, even if he shoots someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.  I suppose if he bungles things so badly that his approval rating falls below, say 20% (not gonna happen), and Republican absolutely see him as an anvil weighing them down, they might be able to muster a 2/3 majority to convict.  But then JD Vance will be President.  And there is absolutely no possibility of the Senate convicting both, because that would make Hakeem Jeffries President under the Presidential Succession Act that makes the Speaker of the House next in line.  There is no way 2/3 of the Senate would agree to that.

But let us suppose that the Democrats win both houses in 2026 by a sweeping landslide and Trump is unable to throw out the results.  On January 3, 2027, Hakeem Jeffries is sworn in as Speaker of the House.  The next day a bolt of lightning appears out of a clear blue sky and strikes Trump and Vance dead, so Jeffries becomes the next President.  What would I recommend?

Well, if a Democrat wins in 2028 and Trump is somehow unable to overturn the result, my advice would be to act boldly in exposing what Trump has been doing and instituting reforms to keep it from ever happening again.  I would advise a President Jeffries to be more circumspect.  Not being actually elected to the office he would not have a mandate from the people, so he would be somewhat lacking in legitimacy.  That would have to be taken into account.  I would recommend that he halt any illegal actions by Team Trump and work to clean up the mess that he made but leave major policy initiative to Congress.  Of course, if a duly elected Congress passes a measure, it would have the mandate from the people, so I would recommend that Jeffries sign it and be forceful in implementing it.  

Within these limits, what do I recommend?  I have often said that I cannot tell if JD Vance is an opportunist with no principles or a dogmatic ideologue, but I hope that he is an unprincipled opportunist, because an unprincipled opportunist can be rational if it is in his interest.  A dogmatic ideologue never bends.  Tom Homan is an unprincipled opportunist.  He tacks with the wind.  Greg Bovino is a dogmatic ideologue.  

So, my advice to a hypothetical President Jeffries is to get rid of the ideologues in Trump's Cabinet right away but keep the opportunists until they give you a reason to fire them.  We will see how long it takes.  The absolute first thing he must do is fire Pete Hegseth.  Hegseth is the only one who might actually be able to stage a coup.  But it will take at least some time to make a plan (we are assuming lightning strike, after all), and everyone in the Pentagon hates Hegseth's guts and might refuse the unlawful order.  So, fire Hegseth right away and have him escorted off the premises.  There will be great cheers in the Pentagon.  Replace him with some apolitical and uncontroversial technocrat who can revamp the military to catch up with all the changes in modern warfare, probably the CEO of some drone contractor.  

Once Hegseth is out of the way, fire RFK, Jr. and replace him with some uncontroversial and apolitical technocrat who can clean up the mess he made.  Fire Russ Vought and replace him with someone personally loyal but also loyal to the law.  (There is no way the Director of the Office of Management and Budget can escape political controversy).  Fire Steve Miller.  There is no need to replace him.  And generally fire the White House staff who do not need Senate confirmation.  They are picked for personal loyalty to the President and do not have to administer agencies.  Give the rest the benefit of the doubt and let them prove they are unprincipled opportunists who can tack with the wind.*  Tell them that firing all of them would be too messy, but that when you give a directive, you expect them to obey or resign.  Once Hegseth is out of the way very quietly let your Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security know that any coup attempt will be met with military force.

With that out of the way, what about policy?  

(1)  Artificial Intelligence (AI) really is getting scary and threatening to run out of our control.  But it does no good for us to halt development if China proceeds.  It is not a subject I know anything about, but deferring to people who do: Ban the export of Nvidia chips or other important AI components to China or anyone who might let them get to China.  Then gather together the leaders of the industry and leading experts and make an agreement to halt its expansion until we have reasonable rules in to keep us in charge.  Have them start on a regulatory framework.

(2) Speaking of tech, authorize Starlink to give Ukraine targeting information inside Russia.  In exchange, bring ask Ukraine to send us military advisors to revamp our military to learn the immense changes that have happened in warfare since 2022.

These have the advantage of being something that can be done quickly and unilaterally.  They are both very important in heading off future disaster, but they will yield no immediate or visible benefits, which are very much in demand, so we need to deliver as well.

(3) Return ICE to the barracks and Border Patrol to the border.  Withdraw other Federal law enforcement from immigration and get the back to enforcing the law.  Restore Temporary Protected Status where Trump has revoked it.  Order ICE lawyers to allow bond for any arrestees who do not have a criminal record and have enough ties to their communities not to be flight risks, including people who are in the vast prison network now.

This will benefit immigrant communities and their neighbors, but the advantage to the rest of us will probably not be immediately apparently.  Work closely with the agriculture, construction, healthcare, and other industries that rely heavily on immigrant labor to make sure they get what they need to get going.  This may offer some modest economic relief.  Publicize it.

(4) Let Congress take the lead in investigating the abuses of the previous administration.  Let them work up enough outrage to give you a popular mandate to act.  Make clear to your workforce that stonewalling an investigation will be grounds for firing.  Offer pardons to anyone who cooperates.  Make clear that any pardon is conditional on cooperation.  Also make clear that pardons do not cover future charges of perjury or obstruction for anyone who turns out not to have been as cooperative as they initially appeared.  A sort of Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

(5) In order to deliver actual benefits, get out of the Iran war as quickly as possible on whatever terms we can get.  This may require some escalation first. Be smart and cautious about it.  Also level with the American people.  Let them know that ending the war may offer some immediate relief at the pump, but the effect will be modest.  Explain that it will take time to repair the drilling and refining capacity destroyed during the war, to refine oil once it starts flowing, to refill reserves, etc.  Give some realistic time frame for gas prices to fall.  Give yourself some margin for error here.  Also, reduce tariffs on imports.  Work on restoring trade relations.  Again, let the people know what sort of short term versus long term relief to expect.

(6) Push alternatives to fossil fuels -- solar, wind, nuclear, and geothermal.  Since acronyms in in the vogue, call it SWING.  Someone I read said to promote SWING as a national security, rather than environmental, matter.  But I think most Americans care only marginally more about national security than about the environment.  I would say, promote SWING as a consumerist matter.  SWING will protect you from swings in oil prices.  Don't let your pump prices be hostage to turmoil in the Middle East.  Sounds like a winning message to me.  Of course, this, too, will take time.  Push for permitting reform.

(7) Clean up the mess Trump left across the government, in the sense of getting things working again.  Be as forthright as possible about the mess you are finding and what you are doing to clean it up.  Level with the American people that it will take time.  Celebrate successes.  Blame the previous administration.  A lot.  The American people will give you at least some leeway.  But maybe not all that much.

(8) Don't run in 2028.  Prices won't return to what they were in the good old days.  People won't adjust overnight.  Anger will remain in 2028.  Step aside and let someone not associated with you take the reins.  Blame the previous administration.
 

______________________________________________________-
*What about Kash Patel?  He is no mere opportunist, given his background.  But he appears to be such a lightweight that he can't help but tack with the wind.

Reflections on Jon Ossoff

Jon Osssoff

Not that long ago, Republican politicians who were falling behind in the primary or losing popularity seemed to have an infallible method of recovery.  Just take a bribe or commit some other crime, and then cry persecution when anyone tries to hold you accountable.  Ken Paxton, impeached by the Texas House, was the classic example.  Conventional wisdom said that only Washington insiders cared about corruption; ordinary citizens applauded vices of all kinds as proof of "authenticity."  And some advisors were urging Democrats to do the same thing.  Stick to bread-and-butter issues.  Avoid moralizing, including talk about democracy.  Some left wing insurgents went further and urged Democrats to seek out someone who had done something obnoxious and offensive at best (say, having a Nazi tattoo, or being a total jerk to women), so as not to be a "smooth groin" or "grown in vats."

Well, things have changed.  Texans are recoiling at Paxton's corruption, possibly even enough for him to lose, certainly enough to make it harder than someone like John Cornyn.  And in Georgia Jon Ossoff is firing up crowds by vowing to expose Trump's corrupt activities and hold people accountable.  He is bridging the gap between the moderate and progressive wings of the Democratic Party.  Both of them want a "fighter," and Ossoff is giving that to them in spades. 

The phenomenon is really not that hard to understand.  It all goes back to the old adage that people fight more over a shrinking pie than an expanding one.  When times are prosperous, people smile indulgently on a little corruption in their leader.  After all, people say, he brought all this prosperity to us, it seems mean-spirited to grudge him a share of it.  But when people are feeling pinched, nothing sparks their resentment more than seeing someone party it up on their dime.  And Trump is doing that in spade.

Ossoff and Warnock

No one has paid much attention to Ossoff up till now.  When he ran for Senate in 2020, he was largely overshadowed by Raphael Warnock.  Warnock also got more of the spotlight because he had to run again in 2022 -- against Hershel Walker, no less.* But now people are even talking about Ossoff as a candidate for President.  Although I absolutely favor appointing him to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as Chair if Democrats win control of the Senate and Ranking Member if they do not.  But I have some misgivings about Ossoff as a candidate for President.  Why?

The answer is a bit hard to put my finger on.  His oratory has been compared to Obama's, but that is clearly not true.  While Obama campaigned (however implausibly) as someone who would bring us all together, Ossoff makes no such pretense.  He channels people's anger, not their hopes.  Under more normal circumstances, I might call him a demagogue.  In this case, the anger he stirs up is entirely justified and appropriate.  It still makes me uneasy.  Alternately, one could say the problem with Ossoff is that he limits himself to being against Trump and does not really stand for anything.  Except that I really do think that restoring the rule of law and implementing safeguards to prevent another such lawless President really is the most important issue we face.  And, again, I really do believe that the person at the top should be a generalist and appoint the best specialists as advisors, but it really does bother me that I just can't see what Cabinet or other executive office I would appoint Ossoff to.

And, again, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that Cabinet posts should be held be prominent politicians.  To the contrary, there are often many fine candidates who no one has ever heard of.  But imagine a hotly contested Democratic primary in 2028 and the front runner seeks to buy the others' support by offering them Cabinet posts.  What positions seem right for various Democratic hopefuls.

Mark Kelly: Secretary of Defense.  He has a strong military background and knows how actual militaries work, as opposed to how to show off for the cameras.  Task him with revamping our military to meet all the changes that have happened to warfare.

Bernie Sanders: Secretary of Health and Human Services.  Yes, I know, he is too old to run by now.  But whereas our best Secretary of Defense is probably some drone contractor CEO no one has ever heard of, I really do think Sanders should be Secretary of HHS.  He has served on the Committee of Health Education, Labor and Pensions for long enough to know the field.  As the foremost and most uncompromising champion of Medicare For All, he should be put in a position to put up or shut up.

Gavin Newsom: Secretary of Homeland Security.  Newsom was the first Governor to stand up to Trump during an ICE blitz, not knowing what the consequences would be.  I would very much like to see him head the department he so forcefully defied and cut it down to size.

Elizabeth Warren: Head of the Securities Exchange Commission or some other major financial regulatory agency.  Yes, I know, she is also too old to run and never seriously made the attempt. Also, financial regulation stops short of being Cabinet level.  But it is Warren's real specialty and besides, a less exalted office is suitable to a less serious candidate.

Adam Schiff: Director of National Intelligence.  He is also a fine candidate for Attorney General, but he is a bit old, and there are others (as we shall see).  Meanwhile, foreign intelligence is his specialty, so it seems to fit best.

Kamala Harris: Attorney General.  She was Attorney General of California, after all.

Jamie Raskin:  Attorney General.  Yes!!!!!

James Talarico:  Secretary of Education.  Appears to be his background.

Andy Beshear:  Has been recommended for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  Zohran Mamdani, though not eligible to be President, might prove to be a good candidate, too. 

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez:  Not sure.  Probably a good reason not to choose her, either.

But what Cabinet post would Joh Ossoff qualify for?  Attorney General might seem tempting, but he is not a lawyer, which disqualified him.  Ossoff's background is as a documentary film maker.  In countries with a Minister of Information, he could be Minister of Information.  But the US does not have such a post and considers the mere suggestion un-American.  I suppose that leaves White House Communications Director, but it seems beneath a Senator or candidate's dignity.  The most plausible spot I can find for Ossoff would be to head some sort of blue-ribbon commission to investigate the Trump Administration's crimes and recommend reforms, which seems like an honorable post.**  And maybe if Ossoff prove effective in exposing corruption and suggesting reforms, that might give him a strong enough policy hold to make him a good candidate for President.

But I don't think he is there just yet.

________________________________________

*Probably another example of why it is not such a good idea to pick the worst candidate around on the theory that they will be the most "authentic."

**Come to think of it, Ocasio Cortez's work has mostly in oversight, which makes her a good candidate for the role as well.

Why Democrats Should be Willing to Crawl Over Broken Glass to Vote for Abdul El-Sayed

 

Abdul El-Sayed

I will begin by setting forth my position, which I hope to repeat many times throughout the election season.  I believe, as I think many others do, that Donald Trump is an existential threat to our democracy and everything we hold dear, who must be stopped at all costs.  I think that many others agree.

And if you truly believe this, it logically follows that "all costs" should include voting for a candidate who is not your first choice, or who you did not vote for in the primary, or who does not check all your ideological boxes.  It even means voting for a candidate who may be troubling in some ways.

And, in fact, Democrats seem to have taken this lesson to heart.  After long, hard-fought primaries, they have promptly closed ranks behind the winner.  When Graham Platner was forced out in Maine, Democrats quickly coalesced around at candidate who shared is policy outlook and had a real working class background but lacked his unsavory baggage.  When the leftwing insurgent in Wisconsin lost the gubernatorial primary to an establishment candidate, she lined up behind the winner.  And so, too, in Michigan, when Abdul El-Sayed, the leftwing insurgent, beat the establishment candidate, Michigan Democrats promptly closed ranks behind him.

El-Sayed, so far as I can tell, stands well to the left of your median voter or even your median Democrat, but is not insane and seems mostly free of alarming baggage.  The most alarming things about him are (1) his hostility to Israel sometimes seems to bleed over into alarming territory and (2) he is closely associated with leftwing shock jock Hasan Piker.  On the strong side, he has a strong background in public health -- probably better than any current sitting Democrat in either house of Congress, and certainly better than any current Democratic Senator.  He has also, to all appearances, shown first rate administrative competence in managing the Detroit and Wayne County public health departments.

Assuming El-Sayed wins, the best strategy for Senate party leaders is obvious.  Put El-Sayed in charge of public health policy and, secondarily, have him work on administrative oversight.  These are his strong points and areas where Democrats would certainly have use for his talents.  Keep him out of foreign policy and national security, where he is most controversial and has no particular credentials.  In terms of committee assignments, put him on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and perhaps the Veterans Affairs Committee.  Healthcare is the Democrats' strongest policy area and El-Sayed no doubt has unique contributions to offer in that field (including veterans' benefits).  If that is not enough to keep him busy, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee apparently has the sort of general administrative supervision role as the House Oversight Committee and handles general administrative competence -- another of El-Sayed's strong points.  But the leadership would probably want to keep him off the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, or the Intelligence Committee.  These are the places where El-Sayed's views are most controversial, and where he has no particular expertise.*

And consider the implications of putting El-Sayed on the health committee.  If Democrats want to enact Medicare For All, El-Sayed is particularly well qualified to work out the practical details of making that a reality.  For anyone who is skeptical of the plan's feasibility, El-Sayed is particularly well-positioned to figure out if it is practical, and to extend Medicare to all if it is practical, or to convince Bernie Sanders et al if it is not.

But even that is not El-Sayed's biggest attraction.  His biggest attraction is that if he serves on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, he will have oversight over RFK, Jr.  And that means that El-Sayed will be able to ask RFK, Jr. questions and make him squirm like we have never seen him squirm before.  Now, that's worth crawling over barbed wire and broken glass to see!

___________________________________________

*Interestingly, his opponent, Mike Rogers, does have a strong background in these areas and probably would get these committee assignments, but not any healthcare assignment, if elected.  But, after all, there is nothing wrong with two rival candidates for Congress having different areas of expertise.

All Elections Matter

One of the things that distinguishes the US from any other country is our extraordinary number of elective offices -- almost 500,000!  No other country anywhere in the world has anything approaching that number of elective offices.* In a midterm election year it often seems that there is some sort of election taking place in the country every week -- an exaggeration, but not all that much of an exaggeration if one counts special elections.

And here is the thing to keep in mind -- all those offices matter.  Much of the day-to-day business of governing takes place at the local level.  Local officials control law enforcement, school, road maintenance, land use regulations, etc.**  Many have argued that Democrats' great mistake when Obama was elected was to put all their eggs in the Presidential basket -- to assume that once we elected a President, everything else would fall into line.  That is not just a serious misunderstanding of the nature of government in the US, it is an ultimately authoritarian outlook.  It assumes that power flows from the top down and that the person at the top can dictate terms for everyone else.  

Putting all our eggs in the Presidential basket proved a disaster.  Republicans won sweeping victories at all other levels.  Democrats have learned some things from the experience and focused more on Congress and Governors.  Democrats are only beginning to start seriously competing in state legislatures and state Supreme Courts.  But that, too, still focuses on the tip of the governmental iceberg. It ignores the vast array of local governments that account for the great majority of elective offices (see below).

Not only do we have an immense number of elective offices, but all of those offices are important.  Governors certify election results.  They also decide whether to put their State Police at the disposal of ICE (I'm look at you, Texas and Florida).  Secretaries of State (usually elective) certify election results and set regulations governing elections.  Attorney Generals (usually elective) can sue to block Trump's latest outrage -- or not.  State legislatures set laws governing elections.  They also pass laws mandating or forbidding sanctuary policies.  They can pass Medicaid expansion -- or not.  They can move at least to some degree to fill the gaps Federal funding and regulatory cuts have left -- or not.  

Counties in the US

And that is just at the state level.  County Clerks (usually elective) actually run elections and count the votes.  There have been isolated cases of resistance to certifying results.  Expect more.  Where state sanctuary laws are silent or ambiguous, decisions can be made by county sheriffs (usually elective), city councils, and city police chiefs (usually hired by the elective government).  Don't forget, counties in the US are generally geographic, rather than demographic, units.  This means that most counties are rural and (presumably) elect Republican officials.  

My focus has been here has been on elections and sanctuary laws, but a local government can affect a wide variety of other issues, from data centers to school curriculum to school transgender policies (not my cup of tea, but important to others on our side).  

In short, it can seem frivolous to focus on local offices and policy when our democracy is at stake.  But local offices and policy are democracy.  Much of it is dull and mundane, but such is life.  Furthermore, these local offices are the "bench" that the party draws from to recruit candidates for higher office.  Democracy is safe only if Democrats learn to stop ceding vast parts of the country to Republicans and become competitive everywhere.  The scale is daunting. But the time to start is now.  Because if we wait, it will be too late.

________________________________________________

*And, yes, I understand that a country as large as the US will necessarily have more elective offices than a smaller country.  But US citizens choose from a longer ballot than voters anywhere else.
**At we approached the 2024 elections and a Donald Trump victory seemed inevitable this was my one source of hope.  Political power in the US is extremely diffuse.  Local government offers an immense number of points of resistance.  The Federal Government's super power is the money it dispenses.  The best way I could think to prepare for Trump was to audit budgets and plan for how to get by if federal funds were cut off.