Morning Fog

What Should A Biden Government Do?

Two weeks ago, in its magazine section of January 17, the Washington Post invited a group of randomly selected "experts," and seven "artists" (?), of many of whom I've never heard, to write essays about "one surprising thing" the incoming administration should do. Some were breathtakingly broad and not at all surprising (e.g., Address Climate Change, or Tackle Gun Reform). Others seemed naïve and very boring, like "Convene a Racial Truth, Justice [sic] and Reconciliation Commission" (a big fat report of learned soles' verbose prescriptions for changing human behavior is sure to be a best seller) or "Learn From the Rest of the World" (hey, we can't even learn from ourselves!).

If they had asked me, I might  have proposed "Start a Race to Space for the Discovery and Settlement of Other Planets."  Personally, I would really enjoy moving to a planet with intelligent life.

None of this was much help to our new President, I'm afraid. Fortunately, in the past two weeks, Biden seems to have set a fairly clear list of priorities, and is acting on them. 

All these recommendations propose legislative and government action. That's fair enough - after all we do have a government and it's supposed to "do things" for the common good. But surely we all recognize the reality that progress in a landscape fraught with political antipathies will be hard to effect. 

So, I nominate as the surprising thing Biden must do early:  To broaden the "big tent" of the party by bringing new voters to it.  Success there will bear even more fruit, two or four years hence, than any programs he gets passed. But it's a different track from steps he has taken to date. It will mean talking about issues and drafting legislation in ways that reflect he truly means he intends to be the President of all Americans (Trump said it, but never meant it). In effect this means drawing away voters from the Republicans - those who voted for Trump for no better reason than an inchoate sense of "what have I got to lose?"  The GOP is already a minority party. Pulling away as little as 5 percent of their voters, may shake them awake to reform, or kill them off, leaving room for a new party.  Now THAT would be an interesting development! 

Breaking news: As this "goes to press" Matthew Dallek writes in the Washington Post today about the possibility that "the Republicans still living with us in the real world" can force the fringe voters out and reclaim the Republican Party as their own. Dallek's argument is worth a read (he suggests there is a parallel in the way the party dealt with the Goldwater fringe in the 1960s). In a way Dallek and Morning Fog are making the same point: The Republican Party needs to deal with its fringe groups and get them shoved back in the closet. But I'm not at all convinced that the party's current leaders could make that happen. They'll need to be much more scared than they are now. If Biden can make good his case that he is a President for all, he can be an agent of positive change, no matter which way events break.

The Art Of The Possible

What happens when politics, the "Art of the Possible," tries to survive in a world where nothing seems possible? There are a lot of teeth-gnashing reports in many quarters of our media, worrying that Biden's pledge to unite the Disunited States of America is naive and bound to fail. These worriers [let's call them worry-warriors] point to Republicans' suddenly rediscovering their hatred of deficits; to McConnell's continuing stonewalling, to Trump fans of all stripes continuing to worship every lying, traitorous, or deranged word he has ever uttered.

No, the odds for achieving unity, or even mutual respect and tolerance, seem pretty bleak just now. But all these forms of divisiveness were entirely predictable. It's only been five days since Biden was inaugurated. Let's see where niceness leads him. Hope springs eternal, especially, it seems with Biden. And I for one haven't given up on the chance that some weird, unexpected event will break the ice jam on the Potomac.

But I hope he won't be silly about it. There are some red lines on which he and Democrats generally need to be firm. One is that Trump richly and indisputably merits trial and conviction in the Senate. The case is cut-and-dried to any rational person. There is no "it depends" answer to the question at hand. Those who deny it are concerned, not with defending the Constitution, but with keeping themselves in power at all costs. Democrats must pursue impeachment to its end, even if it does reduce chances of cooperation in Congress on other matters.

Which brings us to red line number 2:  Hoping for reconciliation, cherishing the ideal that legislation on major national problems should and can be bipartisan,  Biden must not fall into the trap that Obama did. Republicans are already signaling that they will play the same games of delay, obfuscation, and eventual flat rejection as they did in 2008-2016. If that continues more than a month, Biden needs to use what power he has to push through what he can, with majorities in both Houses. Not only is that course just, but time-sensitive, for I believe Biden has a shorter window than he realizes - Democratic Party unity will start disintegrating rather quickly - it always does!

What specific tasks should Biden focus on, beyond trying to overcome the Trump virus?  I hope to address that in my next post.

 

 

   

President 45 School

What's in a name? Columnist George Will's recent column "The Sensitivity Sweepstakes" reviewed the art of political correctness and the extremes to which it went in 2020. It's worth a read. To cite just a couple of his examples, in case you can't access the column: the curious notion that Ulysses S. Grant, the military genius who was most responsible for defeating the rebel Confederate States of America, should not be honored because he owned a handful of slaves; or that a lecturer in a university class who read to his students the "Letter from Birmingham" whose author (a guy named Martin Luther King, Jr.) used "the n-word" ought to be fired.

There are many difficult decisions to be made in this country as we consider the implications of deeply rooted racism, or of other past sins. But I would agree with Will that some of the demands being made now are laughable.

I would agree that huge numbers of statues to Confederate heroes must be removed, with some possibly to be parked in a museum somewhere. Most of those appeared years after the Civil War, after Union forces won the war, but Northern politicians lost the peace. A tragedy, but what can we do? We can take down those statues. But reason cautions me against de-naming anything that glorifies or commemorates someone strictly on the basis that he owned slaves. How can we possibly decree, from our position 150 years after the fact, that prominent individuals and national leaders should not have shared the customs, mores, and attitudes of their time?

Well, all these matters are being dealt with now, and not all will end up without some people's reputations being injured or destroyed rather needlessly. (Aside: Another telling example cited by Will was in Great Britain: zealots were decreeing that the name of something (was it a town? a museum? I forget.) must be changed; when it was pointed out the person it was named for was NOT the same person to whose moral turpitude the zealots were objecting, they insisted it must be changed anyway, "to avoid confusion." Far be it from them to concern themselves with facts or reality when their high moral credentials are at stake.

Again, these things will be worked out in coming years, in various ways. But in the meantime, changing the past can be an annoying and even costly process for those living in the now. Here in Arlington, Virginia, "Lee Highway" (named after you-know-who) runs within a couple of miles of my house, and for miles out into the Virginia countryside. Its name is being changed soon, at least here in Arlington, but I lay money on two things: (1) locals, if only from habit, will keep on referring to it by its old name for years, and (2) hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent by government and business to alter street signs, business addresses, and such.

There is a practical way to avoid all this nuisance and cost? Lee Highway has another designation:  U.S. Rte. 29. That has a pleasant, unifying, apolitical ring, doesn't it? Why can't we just refrain from having to name every human structure, and many natural ones, for some broken-down Highway Commissioner, pious priest, a Superintendent of Schools who just did his job, or even a twice-impeached President?  [Be forewarned, those requests for naming things "Trump" are coming, and many will be approved, and later we'll need to change them.] 

I am much in favor of numerical names, or those representing natural features. New York City already does this with its elementary schools, e.g. P.S. 329, and there is a school not far from where I live known as "Lemon Road School." Those are great names.

How's The Economy, Mr. Trump?

For years, the G.O.P. stood for fiscal responsibility and conservative spending. It occurs to me, though, that in recent years, at least the past couple of decades, that has changed. Nowadays, they are for such conservative policies when Democrats are in power, but not nearly so reticent with spending when Republicans are at the helm. 

The Dubya Bush administration allowed a recession to materialize just in time to leave it for the incoming Obama administration to deal with. On spending, in the final months of the Bush administration, Congress "did the right thing" by approving a spending bill for economic recovery (one that the GOP could take credit for) even while insisting spending be "limited" and after the election, refusing cooperation in further support for recovery. Currently we see the same thing occurring again, as Republicans sign on to a minimal relief bill, in time to take credit for doing something, even as that rudder of principled constancy, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is already suggesting that what's been approved is enough - we dare not spend more!

To which my reply would be what I heard one woman, being interviewed about a month ago, said:  "Six hundred dollars is what rich people think poor people will see as a lot of money." How do you pay your rent, put food on the table, and keep the electricity on with a one-time payment of $600, especially if you've lost your job?

So we will soon find out how Republicans will respond to Biden's announced plan for further relief.  The saving grace may be that the Democrats do have a majority, albeit a weak one.

It's key to understand where the economy stands at this juncture. If like Mr. Trump, you think the burgeoning stock market represents a healthy economy, I'd just note that stock markets have been known to crash.  Fortunately however, the Washington Post provides an excellent report on government spending under the Trump administration: "Trump's Most Enduring Legacy.."

Some Wise Words

I praise columnist Eugene Robinson's piece of January 15, entitled "The GOP Is out of Time to Reject Trump's Lies." 

You can find the entire column on the Washington Post website, or elsewhere online, but I would just quote the following bit:

A GOP that internalizes and retains Trump's conspiratorial worldview is not a political party. It is a dangerous cult. Elected officials who have cynically - or cravenly - gone along with that cult's lies will not find it easy to reverse course. Much more important than whether Trump is convicted is whether Republicans level with their constituents and tell them that Trump is lying.

Well said! Robinson is correct that Republicans have cried "Lamb!" far too often and far too long. It's unlikely that they will be believed when they now shout "Wolf!" What is really needed to help put the truth back in business is to have Trump himself confess his lies - something we are very unlikely to get.

 

By the way: That pesky lizard next door has discovered his voice again today, offering some observations about instilling justice into the covid-19 vaccination process. Check him out at thetinlizard.com.  Don't be shocked, he has no sense of decorum. But sometimes he makes sense. 

Happy Unnew Year

We in the U.S. all tend to think of a new year - whether it's the calendar year, or the chronologically later beginning of a new President's term, as a fresh start. Out with the old problems, on to new challenges and projects. We think that, but it's never true. Not in our personal lives, nor in the life of a nation. Things carry over.

That's true in spades now. Trump is impeached, could face conviction, and is on his way out, but he will continue to make trouble, and no ban on future political activity is likely to stop him. Republicans in Congress, almost every one of whom helped to enable Trump's destructive acts, were slightly chastened by the violence at the Capitol on January 6, but many, especially in Congress, persisted just a few hours after being saved, in questioning the outcome of the 2020 election, while others still suggest that election was "stolen." Voters still voted for Trump in large numbers in 2020, and they're still mostly in his corner and find his false claims credible. The rioters who trashed the Capitol and Democracy itself are being tracked down and at least some will be brought to justice, but they and their cohort remain a threat, even if it's not clear yet of what magnitude. Many issues - including the pandemic, our foreign relations, and the partisan divide have been left in tatters, or half finished.

So our new President will have all that to deal with but will also need to demonstrate useful progress on the nation's issues while (in my  opinion) working to expand the big tent of the Democratic Party before the 2022 elections.

I hate to be a buzzkill, but the truth is, there's not a lot to be euphoric about in this new-year, new-administration season. I do think it can be handled, and that things may look cheerier in a year or two.

Meantime, how shall we mitigate all these problems? Trump created or exacerbated every one of them. It would be nice to think he might be prevented from making things still worse, but even a full impeachment with a ban on running for public office, unlikely as it is, wouldn't stop him from communicating with, and rousing, the rabble. Sadly, unless he just drops dead, the only option seems to be to assume Trump has a "better nature" somewhere, and to appeal to it, as I did years ago, at the time of the Charlottesville riots:      

"Letter to a Former President" (August 2017)

 

Ignoring Science?

Over the past weekend, in my county, there was an evident uptick in activity to deliver anti-covid vaccine to a broader section of the population. We're still not at the stage where everybody has access, but we've moved beyond the first tier of front-line health care workers (in Virginia, that's group 1A) and now moving into the much broader group called 1-B, which includes many other categories of individuals who have immediate need because of their profession (transportation workers, teachers, police, etc.) as well as anyone who is 75 or older. 

I'm 75, so by chance, I was able to get myself on a list for a vaccine tomorrow, January 13. The appointment you get can be very erratic, depending on which email you respond to, and when - I know friends who also have appointments on dates ranging from late January to mid-February. The residents of a retirement home near me began getting vaccine as of yesterday. So, it's bumpy but it's progress.

We are told that when we obtain our first vaccination, we'll get an ID card specifying which vaccine we were given, as well as an appointment for the second dose. Sounds good. Except....

Biden is talking up a plan to release all available vaccine immediately when he becomes President. The idea is that this step would make more vaccine available for more people right away, but some or most of the vaccine supply that would be released would include what's being held to provide a second dose to those who got dose 1. It seems risky to proceed on the notion that people may get one dose but would face considerable uncertainty about when, or if, they would see their second.  Less risky perhaps for us 75-year-olds who can still isolate ourselves in various degrees; but especially risky for those who are exposed daily to the virus through their work.

Biden needs to clarify the issue of the second dose before proceeding. Manufacturers say two doses are necessary to obtain protection at that "95+%" level; that's the "science" here. Would Biden choose to ignore "the science," as he told us he wouldn't, in order to produce better statistics on getting shots in arms?

 

The Gavrilo Princip Principle

As the occupation of the U.S. Capitol by Trump dupes unfolded two days ago, I noted, as many did, that planning for the security of the building clearly had been inadequate to the need. This must have been an error of leadership and planning; it's entirely appropriate that the head of the U.S. Capitol Police Force has now resigned. But that is not to denigrate the members of the force, who (mostly) performed their duties quite well under the circumstances.

The much-played video of a single police officer left to block the stairs as the mob began to make its way up was instructive. I sympathize with the officers who were injured as a result of our President's reckless disregard for truth, especially of course with the officer who died on January 7 as a result of his injuries the day before. Much less sympathy, incidentally, can be offered concerning four others who died during the melee (one shot, the others from medical causes) - all four of those were part of the mob, and presumably they came knowing there was a risk.

One interesting sidebar on this whole mess is to contemplate things the role that almost certainly would NOT have occurred if the Capitol Building had not been breached, vandalized, and terrorized. The most obvious is that almost all those Trump allies in the Senate and House would not have been induced to abandon their plans drag out certification of the electoral votes. Pete Buttigieg, during his run for president, memorably observed that many Republicans seemed unable to locate their consciences. Boy, they found them in a hurry, didn't they, when they were fearing for their lives?

Other topics that would never have come up without the physical occupation of the Capitol were the suggestions that Pence and the Cabinet should use the 25th Amendment to oust Trump from office, even a few days before his term end; or that he should be impeached again. And in turn, without those threats, Trump would never have conceded, even as muddily as he did, that Biden and Harris had won the election. Finally, Trump's very clear role in fomenting the developments of January 6 may actually cause the scales to fall from the eyes of at least some voters across the country. Even the Proud Boys may learn a lesson from having foolishly let themselves be incited and exploited by Trump to raid the Capitol, believing his promise that he would accompany them [which he did not!] and, only two days after hearing him say he loved them, to hear themselves being described in very different terms.

Will any of these consequences of the night of January 6 have any lasting effect? Time will tell. And chaos theory suggests we'll never really know for sure.

Incidentally, the title of this post refers to Gavrilo Princip, the man who shot the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand and set off World War I. He only succeeded in doing so because, having missed his chance once due to a route alteration, he happened to be standing on a different corner slightly later when the Archduke's coach driver took a wrong turn and passed right in front of good ol' Gavrilo!  

Shame At The Capitol

Well, today's events at the U.S. Capitol certainly merit the term "shameful," as rioters egged on by our mentally deranged criminal-in-chief stormed the Capitol, seeking to disrupt the proceedings.

There is lots of shame to go around: 

for the "protesters" who allowed themselves to be hornswoggled once again by a serial liar;

for Trump's many, many Republican enablers who have consciously sought to undermine U.S. election procedures based on nothing more than their lack of courage or even a shred of concern for their sworn duties  ;

shame too, I must say, despite their valiant efforts, on Capitol security officials who failed to prepare for an attack that was certain to come;

shame for our news media, who can only sit around and lament that they've "never seen anything like this;

even greater shame, though of a somewhat different sort, for the millions of Americans who had enough common sense NOT vote for Trump yet are stuck with this degrading view of their democracy;

and even a smidgen of shame - the shame of ignorance - for those voters who DID vote for him without being able to see what he was, and is.

Who in this country tonight is without shame?  Only Donald Trump.  And while many involved in the aftermath of today's events are suggesting the worst is over, I would remind them that Trump is still with us (which means of course, that he is against us). He did not retracted his incitement of the rioters, but instead reiterated his baseless claims that the election was stolen from him! I think we should consider that his whole performance today was calculated to produce the result it did. Definitely, it will delay still further the official certification of the election results; but -- think like Trump for a moment and wonder if the resultant chaos at the Capitol may presage more chaos on inauguration day, or perhaps (just perhaps) his attempt to declare martial law and call the entire election null and void.  Would that make his enablers stand up and be counted?  Maybe. But ONLY MAYBE.