Morning Fog

Reestablishing Comity

It seems commonplace now (and true) to suggest that we are a divided nation because we all live in, and retreat to, our own social bubbles, seeking out opinions that conform with our own, and demonizing those that don't. We are unable to speak the "others," however we define them, let alone accept that they're just plain old Americans like us. There are grass-roots efforts cropping up in many places seeking to ameliorate this separation but the malaise is too broad to be dealt with entirely by small local efforts.

There are some things we can do on a broader scale (more to come) but for now I'd toss a kudos to the observation that Trump's former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats made in a recent interview: that we should address each other enough to find common ground in support of our election process and its essential soundness, because if we don't, it's not Trump or Biden who will win, but our enemies in Russia, China, and Iran who have tried so hard to disrupt it.

Can SCOTUS Avoid Sullying Itself In November?

Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed as our newest Supreme Court Justice. No surprise there! Personally I harbor some expectation that she will deal Trump some surprises. Let us hope.  Meanwhile...

The Washington Post ran an editorial yesterday morning suggesting that the vote be delayed until after the election, on the premise that Trump would then still have his remaining time in office to get her confirmed, but she would not be in a position to be embroiled in deciding elections results.  Hah! Not a bad suggestion, but of course no one paid the least attention to it.

The Post also argued that Barrett should recuse herself from any case arising from the November 3 election, not because she couldn't be open-minded, but because any decision favoring Trump would inevitably be seen by the public as payback, and redound against the Court's reputation for impartiality. I agree. In fact did agree, in Morning Fog October 14. But as I also said there, Barrett's recusal, even if she chooses to do so, is insufficient to salvage the Court's reputation. Any Court decision on election outcomes, with or without Barrett's vote, is going to have the same deleterious effect on the Court's perceived legitimacy.

The only answer is for the Supreme Court to refuse to take up any cases related to election outcomes. Our existing election procedures have been sufficient in the past, and should be now. Those procedures are established entirely by states, or even counties, so shouldn't decisions of the states' supreme courts be legitimate? Would it even be legit for SCOTUS to be involved? WAS it legit for it to involve itself in that decision of 2000? Of course lawyers can make it seem that legally, 2 + 2 ≠ 4, but it is the public perception of nonpartisan fairness that is essential to Supreme Court legitimacy.

One good that might come from the furor over this election, Barrett's confirmation, the President's self-serving innuendo, and talk of Supreme Court involvement, would be an impetus to create and legislate a consistent and uniform set of procedures and parameters to apply to all elections of federal officials. It's high time.

 

 

Remember Trump's GOP Enablers

A return to moderation in politics requires a signal defeat for Trump at the polls. But it also means that Trump enablers in the Senate and House - and that means every one of them, such stellar examples as Graham and McConnell of course, but also including Murkowski and Romney - must suffer wide defeat at the polls. Otherwise it will likely be impossible for Biden to govern, let alone make progress in correcting the disasters of the past four years.

Even more important, I think, is to keep in mind that a possibility remains that voter suppression, false claims of election "fraud," and the vagaries of the electoral college system might restore Trump to office regardless of the outcome of the popular vote. If that dangerous and disgusting (a favorite Trump word) outcome occurs, the moderate's second line of defense must be the defeat at the polls of as many Trump enablers as possible.

Thus in some ways, defeating "Republickin's"* in Congress may be more essential than defeating Trump himself. I hope voters are keeping this in mind.

 

* NOTE: The term Republickin' is a specific coinage, intended seriously but with a bit of tongue in cheek, for the President's enablers in Congress. For detail, please see: https://www.thetinlizard.com/2020/10/whats-a-republickin-.html.  The Tin Lizard is a blog related to Morning Fog, which will carry a broader and less political subject matter, but happens to be reopening today with an explication of this term that we'll keep using until it's no longer applicable. 

Town Hall Meetings - Some Quick Impressions

Morning Fog had the chance to see parts of each of the two "town hall" meetings last night - one with Trump on NBC, moderated by Savannah Guthrie; one with Biden on ABC, moderated by George Stephanopoulos.

It appeared that Trump must have taken his meds for the occasion. He seemed more relaxed, and more coherent - even, if you didn't know anything that's gone on the past four years, "reasonable." Sadly, being Trump, he continued to spout lots of serious falsehoods, and to blame any and all failures on somebody else. Trump unconvincingly insisted that the reason he felt no guilt at the GOP's bad faith in making a very late-term rush to get Amy Barrett in the door was how poorly Brett Kavanaugh had been treated during his hearings.* On this and other issues, Ms. Guthrie did a surprisingly good, and firm, job of holding his feet to the fire.

Biden came across as reasoned and calm, if sometimes bordering on soporific. Overall, he put forth a clear contrast between himself and Trump, which appears to be the main goal of the Democratic campaign strategy. He was able to address some concerns Trump had raised earlier [i.e. lies] about his policy plans without being screamed down. Mr. Stephanopoulos had little to do.

Optics are important on TV.  Whoa! Trump's show won hands down. It looked like a town hall. It was colorfully produced and the citizen questioners were well within camera range most of the time, although I found the professional nodder posted right behind The Donald to be distracting. Optics with Biden on ABC were dreadful. Biden, sitting with Stephanopoulos on a brightly lit but too monochromatic stage, did manage to doff his mask, but the citizens were in bleachers, in the dark, 100 or more feet away. ABC's commercials were very frequent, numerous, and intrusive, whereas ads on NBC were less noticeable. In fact I can't recall for sure that there were any. 

The best takeaway from these two sessions is that the town hall format may offer possibilities for the future, while Trump may have effectively killed the whole idea of debates.

* Side Note: It's known that Trump was distressed that Kavanaugh actually cried during questioning by Congress. Many of us were. We should not ignore how vicious these confirmation spectacles have become. We should look for ways to mitigate them. Ms. Barrett has not been subjected to the same degree of hostile questioning yet I have a strange feeling that - unlike Cavanaugh - if she had, she would not be crying; she is made of sterner stuff.

Down the Slippery Slope To A Less Supreme Court

I can't muster much enthusiasm for arguing about the nomination and near-certain confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The candidate herself does not appear to be exceptionally distinguished, and he experience is brief, but her background, like that of probably 1,000 other jurists we could unearth, is adequate. Even Democrats see that the outcome of the vote is foregone. They are using their time sensibly, to make clear some of their policy concerns, so far without the rancorous, bitter, and emotional outcries we've had in previous iterations of this exercise. The same drama plays out every time we need a new Justice. Let's get on with it, then.

There can be no question that the Republican Party has savaged, on at least two occasions now, political comity in its crazed pursuit of dominance on the Court. We might wish it weren't so, but in politics, the ultimate deciding factor is power; and the only possible response available to those aggrieved by bad treatment is to have a long memory and play even less fair next time. Let's not be surprised. 

Will Barrett's confirmation much affect issues before the Court, as Trump has made clear he expects? It's impossible to tell. However, because of the absolute certainty of her confirmation, Barrett doesn't even need to lie about her views (as so many others have done) and I actually like that her mode of response seems less orotund than (for example) Kavanaugh's was. Could that mean there is a slightly better chance that we can believe her?  

No comment. But at this time and place I hope all the Justices will have foremost in mind their role in our Constitutional structure, and the broad deterioration of the Supreme Court's legitimacy with voters, beginning at least from the unnecessary intervention in the election of 2000 and running through our current  President's concerted attacks on the rule of law.  The red line I see is the Court's meddling in election results again. We have perfectly good election mechanisms; the Court was not needed. Court intervention shouldn't be required this time, either, but because of Trump's and his henchmen's efforts to call the election process into question, perhaps it will be. This is one of the many indicators of Trump's many pernicious and destructive effects on U.S. society.

I am not among those who expect Barrett to commit in advance to recuse herself from cases involving the election. (Any more than I expect Biden to give a firm answer about whether he would try to "pack" the Court.) But after her confirmation, if the court accepts such a case, I would absolutely expect her to do so immediately. And not just her. Justice Kavanaugh probably should also recuse himself.  He too was :on the ground fixing the outcome in Florida. Perhaps we should suggest that any Justice on the Court in 2000 should recuse him/herself? This could get pretty ridiculous! So let's just leave it for new Justice Barrett, the one who has publicly and specifically been commissioned by Trump to assure his reelection, to recuse. It won't be a happy start for her.  It may be the only way the Court can retain a wisp of legitimacy. Whatever decision they make leave half the U.S. population doubting their impartiality. 

Best then, that they refuse to take any case involving the election.  

 

There can be no question that the Republican Party has savaged, on at least two occasions now, political comity in its crazed pursuit of dominance on the Court. We might wish it weren't so, but in politics, the ultimate deciding factor is power; and the only possible response available to those aggrieved by bad treatment is to have a long memory and play even less fair next time. Let's not be surprised. 

Will Barrett's confirmation much affect issues before the Court, as Trump has made clear he expects? It's impossible to tell. However, because of the absolute certainty of her confirmation, Barrett doesn't even need to lie about her views (as so many others have done) and I actually like that her mode of response seems less orotund than (for example) Kavanaugh's was. Could that mean there is a slightly better chance that we can believe her?  

No comment. But at this time and place I hope all the Justices will have foremost in mind their role in our Constitutional structure, and the broad deterioration of the Supreme Court's legitimacy with voters, beginning at least from the unnecessary intervention in the election of 2000 and running through our current  President's concerted attacks on the rule of law.  The red line I see is the Court's meddling in election results again. We have perfectly good election mechanisms; the Court was not needed. Court intervention shouldn't be required this time, either, but because of Trump's and his henchmen's efforts to call the election process into question, perhaps it will be. This is one of the many indicators of Trump's many pernicious and destructive effects on U.S. society.

I am not among those who expect Barrett to commit in advance to recuse herself from cases involving the election. (Any more than I expect Biden to give a firm answer about whether he would try to "pack" the Court.) But after her confirmation, if the court accepts such a case, I would absolutely expect her to do so immediately. And not just her. Justice Kavanaugh probably should also recuse himself.  He too was :on the ground fixing the outcome in Florida. Perhaps we should suggest that any Justice on the Court in 2000 should recuse him/herself? This could get pretty ridiculous! So let's just leave it for new Justice Barrett, the one who has publicly and specifically been commissioned by Trump to assure his reelection, to recuse. It won't be a happy start for her.  It may be the only way the Court can retain a wisp of legitimacy. Whatever decision they make leave half the U.S. population doubting their impartiality. 

Best then, that they refuse to take any case involving the election.  

 

Political Debates on Television

The first televised debate between Trump and Biden arose suddenly on my horizon. Once I realized it was coming, the first thing that popped into my head was that I needed to watch it. The second thing was, "I hope they've set up sensible procedures to keep Trump from using the scorched earth tactics he employed during his run in 2016."

Sadly as we all now know, "they" had utterly failed to do so. How, I thought, could the organizers have failed to recognize what the sedate standard format would lead to?  If I thought it was problematic, why didn't they? I had assumed that to ensure smooth process, the rules would be like the debate here in Virginia that I had watched the previous week. In that one, the three participants (two Senatorial candidates and the moderator, Chuck Todd of Meet the Press) were online, weren't in the same room, not even the same city. The camera moved from one to the other on schedule, and no one ran over their allotted time by more than a few seconds.

So who sets these things up?  I thought I remembered the parties bargaining over details but since about 1988 the process has been the exclusive domain of "The Commission on Presidential Debates." This organization was set up in a supposedly bipartisan way (for details, check their website http://www.debates.org.)  What I notice is that the three directors' politically active periods were as long ago as the 1980s, which may mean that their understanding of what constitutes normal political practice is a little outdated, and they failed to recognize changed conditions. I prefer to think that than to believe that the Republicans in the leadership duped the Democrats.

Clearly changes are needed, and as of today, the Commission has proposed some, mainly that the upcoming debates be "virtual" events. But the original error made the changes themselves chaotic and controversial. Trump can benefit by claiming that the Democrats requested the changes because Biden couldn't take the heat, and also handily extract himself from playing a losing hand (he has already said he won't participate on a "virtual" basis). 

I don't believe the public loses much if the remaining two debates are canceled. The greater interest will be whether the debates continue in future elections; whether the CPD can make changes that will make the process more relevant; and whether it will even be the CPD that is responsible for setting them up in future. 

Breaking The National Political Logjam [Part 1 of Umpteen, Maybe?]

Trump's support has remained steady almost no matter what he does. So if he were reelected, we can't look to the Party of Trump (PoT)* to do us much good in breaking down the tribal barriers that now pervade our national political life. In fact it seems likely that we could count on a further deterioration, to the point of ruin. So obviously, the moderate course is to rely on the Democrats.

Will Biden and Harris be able to reach out? I'm not optimistic. They'll be too busy with trying to undo the regressive trends that Trump and his sycophants have tried to implant in so many areas (literally ALL areas). They will also working to establish new progressive models, as voters clearly expect, to deal in more creative ways with matters that now seem higher-profile than before -- racism, national health care, income distribution, and climate change, to name a few. They will be doing this not only against the pushback from Republicans who survive the election, but possibly also from different factions within their own party. These jobs will take years; a full Presidential term or even two. And if they should craft some semblance of bipartisan consensus on measures addressing one or two issues, the only barriers that get broken down will be those among a handful of politicians.

This is all good and necessary work, but not enough to keep 2024, or 2028, from looking just like 2016, when we will be looking again at a very narrowly decided election, and we'll be off again on the next Trump disciple's rush to take the country back to the 1950s or earlier.  

Could it be that Biden and Harris need to go much further? Trump's base is real. Certainly it includes malevolent and self-interested politicians who lead them down garden paths, and it includes a small tranche of people who really are "deplorables," not the "fine people" Trump so infamously declared neo-Nazis to be. Democrats should keep in mind that until the mid-1960s, those same deplorables were voting Democratic. But that's the fringe. I believe that mostly the 40%, or 45%, whatever, are just regular Americans. They too have to pay the bills, deal with their health, educate their kids.  They vote, they have issues they legitimately expect their government to help deal with, and - useful to keep in mind - issues where they believe the government ought NOT to get involved.  If they are on average more white, more male, older, less educated, or live in less densely populated areas than those on the other side of the political divide, they are still as American as apple pie and violence.

As a nation, what shall we "do with" this large contingent? If we're going to get past the current state of intense polarization, they are the people to whom Joe and Kamala will need to reach out. Frankly, in the current environment of mutual suspicion and hostility, I don't see how the more extreme proposals of the left get us there. History suggests a President may be able to bring one major change to fruition during a new term. On the other hand, many commentators are seeing hope that the current juxtaposition of several churning crises (black lives matter, climate change, attacks on our constitution and voting procedures, coronavirus) can produce another era of sea change a la FDR. I don't see Joe Biden in that mold.

*There is a terrible punster behind the curtain at Morning Fog who suggests that probably the PoT would rather just sit back and call the kettle black. Or maybe destroy the kettle.

 

When Common Sense Fails

In my youth (that is, up until about four years ago), I thought that elections in this country were largely decided by the basic common-sense and decency of American voters.  From farmers to fine artists or physiotherapists, from geezers to first-time-voters, and regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, or any other factor, the one feature they shared was a very highly refined bullshit radar. 

Most Americans, I thought, would have seen through a man whose every utterance was a lie or exaggeration; whose response to any bad outcome attributed to him was to blame someone else; whose public discourse was so larded with self-aggrandizement, and who was foul-mouthed and insulting to all.  No such luck!  Common sense failed in 2016, leaving me and many others surprised at the end of election evening.

Since then I've noticed it's a pretty clear pattern with Trump that when he is applying epithets to someone or something, his words can almost always be read as applying to himself.  Examples: Disgusting? (No contest, that's you, Donald!)  A hoax? (Says the empty vessel himself?)  The 2020 election will be fraudulent? (If so, it's you and Putin who will have made it so.)  Disgraceful?

Let's dwell on that one a sec: I thought it disgraceful that so many Americans could have abandoned their good sense in 2016 to vote for Trump.  And it seems even more disgraceful, after three-and-a-half years of experience with the real Trump, that while Biden has a decent if conceivably evanescent lead, polls indicate 40+% of voters still support Trump. He has a real possibility of winning a second term. Really?  Doesn't common sense tell us this election should be a landslide, say, Trump 10%, Biden 90%?  We need a landslide if we are going to stop him from claiming victory.  

I continue in the hope that clear-eyed American voters will now reject Trump, and that they will see the equally crucial need to vote out Trump enablers (meaning at the moment any Republican candidate) and return Democratic majorities in both houses. Without that, the country will remain deadlocked and ultimately ungovernable. But they need not be large majorities, and luckily, given what we know about the body politic, there will still be a few Republicans, enough to slow the Democratic bandwagon on at least some issues and force some compromises, because a Democratic government without some checks and restraints could create its own set of problems. 

Trump's Coronavirus

President Trump has announced that he and the missus have tested positive for coronavirus.  

In our supercharged political atmosphere, we may expect a lot of "I-told-you-so's" - and those would be much deserved.  Beyond that lie dark speculations about whether it's a hoax and how Trump intends to turn it to his advantage.

We can also be sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, Trump would be mercilessly mocking Biden.  

The political moderate, however, will hope that Biden's and other Democrats' reactions will be limited to expressing regret, wishing a successful and symptom-free quarantine period, and reiterating the health cautions as dictated by "the science." 

Back in Business

In the header above, you'll see that Morning Fog has the subtitle "A Moderate View on Current Affairs."  That's always been there, and it's the reason I stopped blogging almost two years ago.  It appeared that moderation had died. This blog itself had become more partisan over time, as one Trump outrage followed another. But there were plenty of commentators to point that out.  Why add to the din?

Now, though, there is a very evident need for moderation in the U.S. political landscape. 

Soon I hope to elaborate exactly what moderation means (to me).  Suffice it to say for now that both major U.S. political parties are moderationally challenged. 

The Republican Party, if we can honestly still call it that, is by far the worse offender, but they recognize and own their extremism; they see it as their only way of staying alive. (My take is that they've failed to save themselves, but more on that later.) 

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, as it had to become the anti-Trump, is less conscious of its lack of moderation.  If they don't correct that, they could become as irrelevant as the Republicans are now.  And then what, for the people of the United States?

So Morning Fog is open for business again.